Flood of lawsuits over concealed carry denials

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Review board has denied more than 800 applications in secret and without explanation

After taking a firearms training course, paying a host of fees, and submitting fingerprints for a background check that he ultimately passed, Michael Thomas was puzzled when he was notified earlier this year that a special review board had denied his application for a concealed carry license.

Thomas, a former Air Force reservist who said he routinely carried a gun during military service and has never had a run-in with the law, is one of more than 800 people who have been denied licenses by the board, which meets behind closed doors and keeps its records and reasoning secret, even from applicants who are denied.

Figuring that his was a case of mistaken identity, Thomas wrote to the Illinois State Police to request a review of the decision.

"I have never been arrested or convicted of any offense, either misdemeanor or felony, in the state of Illinois or any other state," Thomas said in his letter. "I have no criminal record of any type."

But the state police, in a letter responding to his appeal request, didn't say why he was denied, and told him that the board's decisions couldn't be reviewed and that he would have to petition a court in order to appeal.

So Thomas joined 193 other Illinoisans who have filed lawsuits against the state police to try and peel back the secrecy of the decision-making process.

The state police review every application and can automatically deny any applicant who does not follow application rules, pay appropriate fees or meet standard background requirements. A provision in the law also allows local police and other officials to object to a person's application after the applicant has passed a fingerprint background check and met the other requirements for a license.

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

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

The lawsuits, including two backed by the National Rifle Association, claim that applicants were denied due process because they weren't given a reason for the board's decision and have no recourse for challenging its findings. Lawyers involved in the cases say the issue is not whether applicants are qualified for the licenses, but whether the licensing process is too secretive and arbitrary.

"There are law-abiding citizens in the state of Illinois who are fully eligible to carry, and they are denied the right and not given any notice as to why," said David Thompson, a Washington, D.C., attorney hired by the NRA to file companion lawsuits in Illinois state court and U.S. District Court. "We want a process established that gives people notice of what evidence the state used to make the determination … and an opportunity to rebut by putting in their own evidence."

The NRA-backed lawsuits ask the courts to vacate the denials and offer any other remedies the courts deem proper.

Some gun-control advocates, however, view the wave of lawsuits as an effort by pro-gun advocates to loosen restrictions in the state's concealed carry statute, which was hastily cobbled in the General Assembly after a U.S. appellate court struck down the concealed carry ban in December 2012.

Law enforcement review was a compromise needed to get the law through the legislature, according to representatives from both sides who were involved in the debate.

"It's the NRA's game plan across the country. When there's not legislation pending, they file lawsuits," said Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. "They never liked this part of the bill. But in a lot of communities, local law enforcement knows a lot more about whether someone should have a concealed carry permit. They know if they're going to someone's house every two weeks on a domestic violence call."

Federal law prohibits convicted felons and convicted domestic abusers from obtaining firearms. Illinois takes the additional step of denying concealed carry licenses to those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor involving the use of force or violence, those who have had two or more violations related to driving under the influence, or those who have been in residential or court-ordered treatment for substance abuse, each within five years of applying for the license.

Additionally, the law compels state police to refer for review any applicant who has five or more arrests within the past seven years or more than three arrests on gang-related charges.

Flood of lawsuits over concealed carry denials - Chicago Tribune
 
As much as I don't like concealed carry, I do think that they deserve to know why they were denied. It makes no sense in not telling them.
 
10559924_10152179494681701_225561014784690902_n.jpg
 
That is not right , people should know why they're being denial to have a conceal gun. They should be able to dispute whatever reasons was given .
 
The Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, a panel with law enforcement backgrounds, considers the objections in private and is not required to explain the reasons behind its decisions except under order from a court, according to the state police's interpretation of the statute.

I'm sorry but what? NOT required to explain? that would be illegal as they're public servants.
 
I'm sorry but what? NOT required to explain? that would be illegal as they're public servants.

Being public servants has nothing to do with it. They also have to uphold the laws, and if someone above them told them this is how the program is set up, then they are doing the appropriate thing. It's not their fault.
 
Being public servants has nothing to do with it. They also have to uphold the laws, and if someone above them told them this is how the program is set up, then they are doing the appropriate thing. It's not their fault.

The public should have the rights to know what any branch of government has on record about them. People do made mistake and will file the wrong info on people that a have common name or just be plan lazy and file the info anywhere. I had a client that had glasses made and had Mass Health send the glasses to her home. My client got eyeglasses that where made for a girl that had the same name as her and they did not live in the same city. This rule is wrong , and I do not blame the people being denies gun wanting answers . The government loves it when people are passive , they're are easier to control and take all their rights away from them.
 
Being public servants has nothing to do with it.
incorrect. when it comes to public service, everything is a public information and is subjected to public disclosure which can be obtained thru FOIA/paperwork. there have been dozens cases like this and they had to be sued to comply.

They also have to uphold the laws, and if someone above them told them this is how the program is set up, then they are doing the appropriate thing. It's not their fault.
uphold the laws? what laws? that's a bullshit policy they made up to hide behind and hope these people would go away... which is illegal.
 
Jiro is right, all people work were either elected or hired by elected officers is servant for our country, it has been like that since George Washington became pesident.

The issue is, its clearly violation of 2nd amendment. These public servants should not infringe free man's right to bear arms, and denied them is clear violation by government servant, period!
In PA, and Virginia, and few other states anyone with clean background will not have any resistance in getting firearms. Normally wait time is 5 minutes, and it was supposed to be that way when strictly compliance of 2nd Amendment.
 
Back
Top