User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 5:15:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Move out of state. Issue fixed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 6:31:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Move out of state. Issue fixed.  nice contribution
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 6:54:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
nice contributionQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Move out of state. Issue fixed. nice contributionHe's not wrong. You move, or you move your guns, out of state. Or at least to a FOID card holding relative. Permanently or temporarily. What other choice would you really have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 7:23:41 PM EDT
[#4]
No my question was does anyone think this is a possibility? Just that. I don't trust this state.
I wasn't asking about a course of action if it happened. I know what that would be. Only does anyone think it would or will happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2014 11:33:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only does anyone think it would or will happen? I think there is someone on IC that it has happened to already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2014 12:23:34 PM EDT
[#6]
This is a very complicated issue....There are ISP denials and Board denials. The ISP denials are fairly well defined and if a rule isn't met, you lose your FOID. The board decision is based on a preponderance of evidence and no defined rules. Just because the board rules arbitrarily you can't carry a concealed weapon, those reasons (if they exist) don't necessarily preclude you from owning a gun. However, what we are seeing is that in the further scrutiny by the board, sometimes an old Order of Protection or similar is being produced by Cook county (usually) and then that information is passed along to ISP and FOID is being revoked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 3:03:48 PM EDT
[#7]
I've never had anything like that My FOID was renewed in 2011, and is good to 2021. No it's just that I've got a liberal neighbor that is the asst. States Attorney for the county, and he hates guns. He also knows I have some non pc types and hates that. Has told me so. He lives about a mile down the road.
Was just wondering if he whined to the Sheriff, and I got denied. If that would have any other ramifications. I have bought a few guns this year. I get approved right away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 4:26:39 PM EDT
[#8]
The LEO objection can't be entirely specious, they do have to upload documentation when they put in an objection to an applicant and make some sort of specific allegation that the documentation supports.
When the due process lawsuits go forward, we'll get a much better look at the real workings of the process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 5:26:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The LEO objection can't be entirely specious, they do have to upload documentation when they put in an objection to an applicant and make some sort of specific allegation that the documentation supports. When the due process lawsuits go forward, we'll get a much better look at the real workings of the process. Except that we have people claiming (an seemingly legit) that they have never had any contact with a police agency in the last 5+ years getting denied after board review. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2014 1:54:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that we have people claiming (an seemingly legit) that they have never had any contact with a police agency in the last 5+ years getting denied after board review. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The LEO objection can't be entirely specious, they do have to upload documentation when they put in an objection to an applicant and make some sort of specific allegation that the documentation supports. When the due process lawsuits go forward, we'll get a much better look at the real workings of the process. Except that we have people claiming (an seemingly legit) that they have never had any contact with a police agency in the last 5+ years getting denied after board review. "People" claim all kinds of things that eventually turn out not to be quite true. The plain fact is we just do not know anything other than that they were denied by the review board. My guess is that when all is said and done on this issue (at some point in the future - maybe as much as 2 to 4 years), the majority of the people that were denied will remain denied, short of the courts taking a far more expansive view of the 2A than they have to date, and that seems unlikely. I think the courts are going to enforce some kind of fair hearing (probably not from the judicial review of the board decision), but that fair hearing is not necessarily going to get them a license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2014 12:52:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Sure it is.
My wife had her FOID card arbitrarily revoked either because she misprinted or they couldn't read her birth date on the renewal form she sent in (no idea whih because we didn't copy it before we sent it). She got a nice pretty letter telling her to cut up her current FOID and that they wouldn't be issuing her a new one until we provided them a birth certificate. If she actually owned any guns and we weren't getting the ID just for "in case" situations because I do then she would have instantly become guilty of committing a felony with no due process or chance to speak for herself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2014 12:56:17 PM EDT
[#12]
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling...
We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2014 4:57:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! 
Governor Mike Rowe? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2014 5:36:47 PM EDT
[#14]
That would never work!!!
Not got the stomach or disposition for politics!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2014 4:40:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Unfortunately the PA that created the FCCA included the language that modified the FOID card act that allows for these kind of revocations. It was not previously in the law.
My guess is that if the courts accept the idea that the board is right about someone being a 'clear and present danger" with respect to having a FCCL, they will consider that adequate proof that they are not suitable to hold a FOID card either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 11:18:57 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 2:14:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 3:17:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
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? This is a distinct possibility. The LEO who object would most likely be a local or county officer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 3:45:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. Well, I would say that your presented as fact "observation" is based on lack of knowledge of what is really going on again! 
Right now, we are working with a lady trying to get her FOID restored after "hitting" her estranged husband 13 years ago. She has been in court 6-7 times already over the past 2 years and hasn't even started the trial portion yet. The ISP (through Atty. Gen.) just made written statement that they think the IL Supreme Court ruling in Corum case shouldn't apply because they think the court was wrong. We just got handed another set of bone headed emergency rules for instructors sourced through Legal. They are contradictory to past rules and contradictory to the law. They have micromanaged the CC implantation but, have given no input to the "We Gots No Rules" CC Review Board. There are lots of other examples but, I think you get my point. Yes, the ISP folks that are churning out the CCL's are doing a pretty fair job...But, we are battling the ISP legal folks daily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 6:38:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I would say that your presented as fact "observation" is based on lack of knowledge of what is really going on again!
Right now, we are working with a lady trying to get her FOID restored after "hitting" her estranged husband 13 years ago. She has been in court 6-7 times already over the past 2 years and hasn't even started the trial portion yet. The ISP (through Atty. Gen.) just made written statement that they think the IL Supreme Court ruling in Corum case shouldn't apply because they think the court was wrong. We just got handed another set of bone headed emergency rules for instructors sourced through Legal. They are contradictory to past rules and contradictory to the law. They have micromanaged the CC implantation but, have given no input to the "We Gots No Rules" CC Review Board. There are lots of other examples but, I think you get my point. Yes, the ISP folks that are churning out the CCL's are doing a pretty fair job...But, we are battling the ISP legal folks daily. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. Well, I would say that your presented as fact "observation" is based on lack of knowledge of what is really going on again!
Right now, we are working with a lady trying to get her FOID restored after "hitting" her estranged husband 13 years ago. She has been in court 6-7 times already over the past 2 years and hasn't even started the trial portion yet. The ISP (through Atty. Gen.) just made written statement that they think the IL Supreme Court ruling in Corum case shouldn't apply because they think the court was wrong. We just got handed another set of bone headed emergency rules for instructors sourced through Legal. They are contradictory to past rules and contradictory to the law. They have micromanaged the CC implantation but, have given no input to the "We Gots No Rules" CC Review Board. There are lots of other examples but, I think you get my point. Yes, the ISP folks that are churning out the CCL's are doing a pretty fair job...But, we are battling the ISP legal folks daily. A set of administrative rules newer than those issued on March 17th are going to be released? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 7:02:22 PM EDT
[#21]
A set of administrative rules newer than those issued on March 17th are going to be released? If that was the packet that talked about keeping records...the goofy scoring rings on targets etc...then yes....They are in the works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2014 7:07:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ISP is running roughshod with the FOID revocations. Up until now, it appears they have not had much push back...I'm amazed at some of the crap they are pulling... We are slowly trying to address this type of issue. There "legal" department needs to be flushed and new one put in place. We need a new Governor!!!! Legal department? Well, a case could be made that if they were good lawyers they wouldn't be working for the State of Illinois... ;) It is not their lawyers job to do what we want them to do. It is to provide the ISP with appropriate legal advice. So far, I have not seen anything that suggests whatever advice the ISP is getting from their lawyers is not appropriate. At some point the courts may have their say, but as the law is actually written, so far the ISP has been pretty even handed and fair at applying what the law actually says. I think there is ample room to complain about the actual law itself, but to date the ISP has been very circumspect in following it. The 'legal department' making things up as they go with no basis in statue is enough reason for me to question them. Feel free to not see it. Just accept the fact that ignoring something isn't the same as having it not exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2014 3:11:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 'legal department' making things up as they go with no basis in statue is enough reason for me to question them. Feel free to not see it. Just accept the fact that ignoring something isn't the same as having it not exist. What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2014 5:41:44 AM EDT
[#24]
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2014 11:11:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. Keeping copies of DD-214's? Revoking the license of everyone that has *ever* been trained by an instructor if the instructor has his certification revoked? I'd bet a person could find 50 examples of the ISP making determinations that have NO basis in statue. And they'll keep doing it until the courts put a stop to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2014 3:37:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. where does it say in the law they can't do that? The law just is not that specific and clearly gives the ISP the power to make rules about how those kind of things are handled. the way the law is written it could mean hitting the paper anywhere too. (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. if you think the department does not have the authority to make these kind of determinations, go to court and sue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2014 3:45:01 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keeping copies of DD-214's? Revoking the license of everyone that has *ever* been trained by an instructor if the instructor has his certification revoked? I'd bet a person could find 50 examples of the ISP making determinations that have NO basis in statue. And they'll keep doing it until the courts put a stop to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. Keeping copies of DD-214's? Revoking the license of everyone that has *ever* been trained by an instructor if the instructor has his certification revoked? I'd bet a person could find 50 examples of the ISP making determinations that have NO basis in statue. And they'll keep doing it until the courts put a stop to it. The law requires that a person get the proper training before being issued a license. The ISP has no choice in the matter. In fact, the law actually requires the ISP to revoke the license of someone who might get licensed using training from an instructor later determined to not meet the requirements. This is what the law says. Note the use of the phrase "shall revoke". That is mandatory language. Training as provided by the act is one of the requirements to be eligible. The department is doing people a bit of a favor by not issuing the license and then revoking it for people caught in the inadequate instruction situation. In any case once the department found out about the inadequate instruction situation they are prohibited by law from issuing a license to such a person. The law requires what it requires and if the requirements have not been meant the law does not give the ISP any wiggle room. I have not heard about the DD214 issue so I do not know what the complaint is there. (430 ILCS 66/70)
Sec. 70. Violations. (a) A license issued or renewed under this Act shall be revoked if, at any time, the licensee is found to be ineligible for a license under this Act or the licensee no longer meets the eligibility requirements of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2014 3:48:56 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
where does it say in the law they can't do that? The law just is not that specific and clearly gives the ISP the power to make rules about how those kind of things are handled. the way the law is written it could mean hitting the paper anywhere too. Yes, you could read it that way if you were stupid...It could have been more specific had it said "on the silhouette"...But, it sure didn't say anything about scoring a b-27 target. if you think the department does not have the authority to make these kind of determinations, go to court and sue.I'm so glad we don't have to use your "the courts have to define everything" approach to fixing these problems...The courts aren't the only answer to getting changes made...We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. where does it say in the law they can't do that? The law just is not that specific and clearly gives the ISP the power to make rules about how those kind of things are handled. the way the law is written it could mean hitting the paper anywhere too. Yes, you could read it that way if you were stupid...It could have been more specific had it said "on the silhouette"...But, it sure didn't say anything about scoring a b-27 target. (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. if you think the department does not have the authority to make these kind of determinations, go to court and sue.I'm so glad we don't have to use your "the courts have to define everything" approach to fixing these problems...The courts aren't the only answer to getting changes made...We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh! We have another meeting in Springfield today....The battle continues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2014 4:52:36 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law requires that a person get the proper training before being issued a license. The ISP has no choice in the matter. In fact, the law actually requires the ISP to revoke the license of someone who might get licensed using training from an instructor later determined to not meet the requirements. This is what the law says. Note the use of the phrase "shall revoke". That is mandatory language. Training as provided by the act is one of the requirements to be eligible. The department is doing people a bit of a favor by not issuing the license and then revoking it for people caught in the inadequate instruction situation. In any case once the department found out about the inadequate instruction situation they are prohibited by law from issuing a license to such a person. The law requires what it requires and if the requirements have not been meant the law does not give the ISP any wiggle room. I have not heard about the DD214 issue so I do not know what the complaint is there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What provision of what law is it you think the are violating? One quick example would be stating that instructors use the scoring rings on the target rather than 70% of hits on the target...There are more. Keeping copies of DD-214's? Revoking the license of everyone that has *ever* been trained by an instructor if the instructor has his certification revoked? I'd bet a person could find 50 examples of the ISP making determinations that have NO basis in statue. And they'll keep doing it until the courts put a stop to it. The law requires that a person get the proper training before being issued a license. The ISP has no choice in the matter. In fact, the law actually requires the ISP to revoke the license of someone who might get licensed using training from an instructor later determined to not meet the requirements. This is what the law says. Note the use of the phrase "shall revoke". That is mandatory language. Training as provided by the act is one of the requirements to be eligible. The department is doing people a bit of a favor by not issuing the license and then revoking it for people caught in the inadequate instruction situation. In any case once the department found out about the inadequate instruction situation they are prohibited by law from issuing a license to such a person. The law requires what it requires and if the requirements have not been meant the law does not give the ISP any wiggle room. I have not heard about the DD214 issue so I do not know what the complaint is there. (430 ILCS 66/70)
Sec. 70. Violations. (a) A license issued or renewed under this Act shall be revoked if, at any time, the licensee is found to be ineligible for a license under this Act or the licensee no longer meets the eligibility requirements of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. An instructor has some personal problem in a year or 3 and loses his certification. Potentially hundreds of students lose their license because of this. Yes, that's a real favor. 
If you haven't considered DD-214 and other documents issue I'm guessing you don't get the ISP correspondence that instructors get. It's probably good not to pretend to be an expert about it then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2014 11:32:31 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An instructor has some personal problem in a year or 3 and loses his certification. Potentially hundreds of students lose their license because of this. Yes, that's a real favor.
If you haven't considered DD-214 and other documents issue I'm guessing you don't get the ISP correspondence that instructors get. It's probably good not to pretend to be an expert about it then. As long as the instructor was certified at the time of the instruction and gave the correct amount of instruction it is doubtful the ISP has any grounds to do anything at all, nor would they likely do so. People who blatantly cheated on the required training are an entirely different story. I still don't know what the DD214 issue is, so it is hard to comment on it.it is just a piece of paper like any other document. Why would it present any special issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 4:58:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as the instructor was certified at the time of the instruction and gave the correct amount of instruction it is doubtful the ISP has any grounds to do anything at all, nor would they likely do so. People who blatantly cheated on the required training are an entirely different story. I still don't know what the DD214 issue is, so it is hard to comment on it.it is just a piece of paper like any other document. Why would it present any special issues. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An instructor has some personal problem in a year or 3 and loses his certification. Potentially hundreds of students lose their license because of this. Yes, that's a real favor.
If you haven't considered DD-214 and other documents issue I'm guessing you don't get the ISP correspondence that instructors get. It's probably good not to pretend to be an expert about it then. As long as the instructor was certified at the time of the instruction and gave the correct amount of instruction it is doubtful the ISP has any grounds to do anything at all, nor would they likely do so. People who blatantly cheated on the required training are an entirely different story. I still don't know what the DD214 issue is, so it is hard to comment on it.it is just a piece of paper like any other document. Why would it present any special issues. The first is an opinion and yours and mine obviously differ. There's no visibility into the process so we really don't know what they're doing or what they'll do in the future. It's unclear at this point if the people that had their applications denied thanks to instructors losing their certification did or did not receive adequate training. The second is in reference to their constant attempts to load even more work and record keeping responsibility onto instructors. The rules have gone from basically 'instructors need to determine if any prior training credit is acceptable' to 'and now we need to keep records of all of it' Hard enough to make sure it's valid. Now we need to catalog and maintain the information subject to audit, and safeguarding that information is our damn problem. We already covered the scoring ring issue so I don't need to except to say it's another example of ISP changing the rules on the fly 'just because they think they can' with no basis in statute. Overall lets just say you're far more trusting of them than I am. But that makes sense since you're not out at the pointy end where you need worry about your certification being pulled and all your students being denied because of a single class that ran 3 minutes short. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 3:46:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Overall lets just say you're far more trusting of them than I am. But that makes sense since you're not out at the pointy end where you need worry about your certification being pulled and all your students being denied because of a single class that ran 3 minutes short. how many minutes short of the required 960 minutes of training do you think is acceptable? 3? 30? 300? the requirements for the training are pretty lax. there is no testing required other than a shooting test that just about anyone can pass. the only absolute is the 16 hours. just give the students the full 16 hours and don't get yourself or your students in a pickle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 4:46:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how many minutes short of the required 960 minutes of training do you think is acceptable? 3? 30? 300? the requirements for the training are pretty lax. there is no testing required other than a shooting test that just about anyone can pass. the only absolute is the 16 hours. just give the students the full 16 hours and don't get yourself or your students in a pickle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Overall lets just say you're far more trusting of them than I am. But that makes sense since you're not out at the pointy end where you need worry about your certification being pulled and all your students being denied because of a single class that ran 3 minutes short. how many minutes short of the required 960 minutes of training do you think is acceptable? 3? 30? 300? the requirements for the training are pretty lax. there is no testing required other than a shooting test that just about anyone can pass. the only absolute is the 16 hours. just give the students the full 16 hours and don't get yourself or your students in a pickle. I'd say about 960 minutes short of the required 960 minutes is acceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 6:16:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh![/span] What is the current status on that? 7 ring or the silhouette? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 7:23:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the current status on that? 7 ring or the silhouette? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh![/span] What is the current status on that? 7 ring or the silhouette? Valinda & I went around and around with ISP...They finally relented...They haven't unrung the bell by making a statement as such but they (leadership) have stated it is the silhouette. This was one of the goofiest arguments I've ever had... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 3:45:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how many minutes short of the required 960 minutes of training do you think is acceptable? 3? 30? 300? the requirements for the training are pretty lax. there is no testing required other than a shooting test that just about anyone can pass. the only absolute is the 16 hours. just give the students the full 16 hours and don't get yourself or your students in a pickle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Overall lets just say you're far more trusting of them than I am. But that makes sense since you're not out at the pointy end where you need worry about your certification being pulled and all your students being denied because of a single class that ran 3 minutes short. how many minutes short of the required 960 minutes of training do you think is acceptable? 3? 30? 300? the requirements for the training are pretty lax. there is no testing required other than a shooting test that just about anyone can pass. the only absolute is the 16 hours. just give the students the full 16 hours and don't get yourself or your students in a pickle. Way to completely miss the point! I'm certain it wasn't intentional in order to continue to be an apologist for the ISP. The problem is *if* I were to run one class potentially 3 minutes short and lose my certification *every* student I've ever taught is at risk either to be denied or have their already issued license revoked. ISP is just protecting them from inadequate training right? Anyway, thanks for the advice on how to run my classes. It'll mean a lot more when your name appears on the ISP site when someone does a search for instructors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2014 4:15:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is *if* I were to run one class potentially 3 minutes short and lose my certification *every* student I've ever taught is at risk either to be denied or have their already issued license revoked. ISP is just protecting them from inadequate training right? Anyway, thanks for the advice on how to run my classes. It'll mean a lot more when your name appears on the ISP site when someone does a search for instructors. The law allows for a lot of flexibility in how the classes are taught and even in the content. What it does not allow for is flexibility in how many hours of instruction is given. I ask again, how many minutes of the required 960 minutes do you think is acceptable to cheat on? It is not that hard to make sure you provide the legally required 960 minutes. If you think there is a remote chance the ISP is going to come after you for cheating on 3 minutes of the required instruction, then make sure you don't cheat your student out of that 3 minutes. It is very, very simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2014 12:41:09 PM EDT
[#38]
First off, I don't believe that you should be required to pay hundreds of dollars and out 16 hours in order to get the chance to exercise a Constitutional right (a chance only, since it could still be arbitrarily and capricously denied even at that point).
It is patently ridiculous that a class going 3 minutes short could not only mean an instructor loses their ability to instruct but can jeopardize those that have been taught by that person before. The requirement should have nothing to do with a randonly chosen amount of time and should deal only with the content of said class. The way it is now is that all the training and live fire could be fit in hours short of the required time but instead you essentially have to pay the instructor to fill the time that could better be spent actually living your life just to meet a stupid legislative requirement. It is truly crappy Illinois law at its best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2014 1:15:56 PM EDT
[#39]
so? it is the law for now. if you don't like it work to change it, but for now there is nothing to be done but to abide by it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2014 4:19:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so? it is the law for now. if you don't like it work to change it, but for now there is nothing to be done but to abide by it. Ever download a video off the internet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2014 11:43:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Valinda & I went around and around with ISP...They finally relented...They haven't unrung the bell by making a statement as such but they (leadership) have stated it is the silhouette. This was one of the goofiest arguments I've ever had... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh![/span] What is the current status on that? 7 ring or the silhouette? Valinda & I went around and around with ISP...They finally relented...They haven't unrung the bell by making a statement as such but they (leadership) have stated it is the silhouette. This was one of the goofiest arguments I've ever had... Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this. [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span]
so? it is the law for now. if you don't like it work to change it, but for now there is nothing to be done but to abide by it. I don't understand your point-of-view at all, some of these issues were spelled-out in law and JCAR rules, to which the ISP has applied their own interpretation that contradicts what the GA put on paper. Your message is consistently sounding an awful lot like the one being put for by certain government agencies.... *snip* Apparently, I oopsied..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2014 5:23:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law allows for a lot of flexibility in how the classes are taught and even in the content. What it does not allow for is flexibility in how many hours of instruction is given. I ask again, how many minutes of the required 960 minutes do you think is acceptable to cheat on? It is not that hard to make sure you provide the legally required 960 minutes. If you think there is a remote chance the ISP is going to come after you for cheating on 3 minutes of the required instruction, then make sure you don't cheat your student out of that 3 minutes. It is very, very simple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem is *if* I were to run one class potentially 3 minutes short and lose my certification *every* student I've ever taught is at risk either to be denied or have their already issued license revoked. ISP is just protecting them from inadequate training right? Anyway, thanks for the advice on how to run my classes. It'll mean a lot more when your name appears on the ISP site when someone does a search for instructors. The law allows for a lot of flexibility in how the classes are taught and even in the content. What it does not allow for is flexibility in how many hours of instruction is given. I ask again, how many minutes of the required 960 minutes do you think is acceptable to cheat on? It is not that hard to make sure you provide the legally required 960 minutes. If you think there is a remote chance the ISP is going to come after you for cheating on 3 minutes of the required instruction, then make sure you don't cheat your student out of that 3 minutes. It is very, very simple. I have no issues with my classes running short. We never have enough time to cover what we want to cover. I'd love to get rid of some of the Illinois legal requirements so we could teach more useful things in the time required. The point you're ignoring is this. An instructor can lose their certification and cost his students their licenses for the most trivial of offenses. We have nothing that tells us otherwise and it doesn't appear any class is looked at in detail. An instructor fucks up and all of his students are also fucked even if they weren't involved in said fuck up. As in the class being short on time by 1/3 of 1% example I listed. One class goes bad = all students ever taught are in trouble. Hopefully the next time you're driving 70.22 MPH on an interstate highway you'll get stopped, get a ticket, and lose your drivers license. That might be a way for you to finally acknowledge how foolish some of this really is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2014 5:24:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this. I don't understand your point-of-view at all, some of these issues were spelled-out in law and JCAR rules, to which the ISP has applied their own interpretation that contradicts what the GA put on paper. Your message is consistently sounding an awful lot like the one being put for by certain government agencies.... I sometimes wonder if you're Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:We have been working through the JCAR committee and directly with the ISP...We got the target issue corrected and it didn't take the courts to make it happen...Sheesh![/span] What is the current status on that? 7 ring or the silhouette? Valinda & I went around and around with ISP...They finally relented...They haven't unrung the bell by making a statement as such but they (leadership) have stated it is the silhouette. This was one of the goofiest arguments I've ever had... Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this. [span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span]
so? it is the law for now. if you don't like it work to change it, but for now there is nothing to be done but to abide by it. I don't understand your point-of-view at all, some of these issues were spelled-out in law and JCAR rules, to which the ISP has applied their own interpretation that contradicts what the GA put on paper. Your message is consistently sounding an awful lot like the one being put for by certain government agencies.... I sometimes wonder if you're THIS |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2014 6:02:01 AM EDT
[#44]
Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... We will continue to hold the ISP to the letter of the law and continue to remind them that they can't write or amend it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2014 3:30:56 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... I am inclined to agree on this one. As long as they meet the requirements of the law they should get a license. There are only a few things the law requires. 16 hours is one. 30 rounds downrange is another. The law does not even require that a student be awake during the classes. If they meet the bare minimums the law requires they should get a license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2014 7:54:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... We will continue to hold the ISP to the letter of the law and continue to remind them that they can't write or amend it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... We will continue to hold the ISP to the letter of the law and continue to remind them that they can't write or amend it! I have trained a few people who range in age from the late 80's to lower 90's. Reasonable accommodation to deal with a physical condition should be something a good instructor is willing to do. Spending extra time with them after everyone else has successfully qualified is something I have done and I believe is something any instructor worth their salt should be willing to do. I have only had to fail two people who were unsafe and had a piss poor attitude about muzzle discipline. They could shoot, but were an accident waiting to happen. As long as someone is handling a firearm safely, an instructor has a responsibility to teach their students. Like IL Bob said, all that is really required is 16 hours and 30 rounds. How an instructor teaches a class should be geared toward his students. If you are running a class with a bunch of high speed people who have years of firearm experience, you might want to place people who may struggle in a different class so no one is embarrassed. I still believe that all you should be required to have to carry a concealed firearm is a valid FOID and it should be our goal. We have a long road ahead of us to reach that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2014 2:18:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... We will continue to hold the ISP to the letter of the law and continue to remind them that they can't write or amend it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swan, I'd like to buy you and Valinda both lunch sometime that you're in Springfield over fighting the scoring issue. I came very close to having to fail a sweet elderly lady a few weeks ago over this I know what you mean...We had a local bad instructor fail a little old lady with MS. She was in tears when she came to us. She said she couldn't see the sights on the provided gun...When it came time to shoot, we gave her a lasered revolver and she put all shots in a 5" group... Now, this lady has physical problems...she is elderly with very limited strength. She isn't going to get in a shootout with a team of bank robbers in downtown Carmi. She primary wants a gun for when she travels and going to and from her house. We could preclude her from carrying a gun by straddling her with a poor instructor and a shooting standard that isn't even close to founded in law...however, the only thing we would really be doing is rendering the most vulnerable in our society totally defenseless and the little bit of feeling of security that this law allows. The Tommy Tacticals that want more stringent requirements because their students might get in a shoot out and they will have to testify in court....Let's see the countless examples of this...we can't find any cases where the instructors were pulled in to testify...Did we see it in the Zimmerman case?? And as far as shooting up the place by someone that can't hit the scoring rings...This hasn't been a problem in any of the states that have no live fire requirement.... We will continue to hold the ISP to the letter of the law and continue to remind them that they can't write or amend it! I'm going to set-up a .22LR pistol, probably a Buckmark, with a Trijicon RMR for just these type of folks. I keep seeing folks with bifocals and trifocals rolling their head up and down trying to figure out what portion of the lenses they need to look through. A single dot to focus on should help them greatly. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
