TTAG Reader Shawn writes from the Land of Lincoln:
“My concealed carry license application was denied. I can forward you the full explanation of reasons of possible denial but the short version is: I was arrested 6 years ago for domestic battery, charges were dropped. I was admitted voluntarily for a week to a psychiatric ward ten years ago. That’s it. Anyway, I’m in the process of figuring out how to appeal it. In that process, aside from contacting the Illinois State Police, I sent an email to the folks over at Illinois Carry. They in turn forwarded my info to the NRA, and I just got off the phone with a nice lady over there. They’re putting together of a list of some bullsh*t denials to see what they can do about it.” Watch this space.
I’m honestly surprised they’re allowing you to appeal. I half exected “too bad, you’re not getting one, our decision is final. Pound sand.”
I don’t know why people don’t vote with their feet and move.
That IS what “appeal” means in Illinois.
Illinois is going to do everything in its power to deny every CCW license it can.
Count on it.
Sorry to hear this Shawn. Good luck with your appeal. If you are not already on IllinoisCarry.com I’d suggest you register, there is an open thread with offers of help to anyone who is denied.
The same is true in NJ, although it has less to do with carry permits, since everyone is denied, but more so when it comes to your initial application to obtain an FOID. Police departments will use any and all reasons, no matter how trivial, do deny people the right to own and purchase firearms. I know somebody who spent over $4k in legal fees to successfully appeal such denial. You hear that, NRA?
Actually, he’d get denied for the same thing here in Florida.
We too have an appeals process.
Address in Chicago –> Sheriff Dart’s “object to all” policy.
That’s flat-out wrong. I wish you the best, and will contribute to your legal expenses if it comes to that. Although you may have much better opportunities outside of Chicago, IL, I appreciate that you are fighting stupid laws where you presently reside. I’m doing the same thing in Brea, CA, and I have my eye on free states like WI where most of my family lives.
Hell yes, constitutional open carry is nice.
While not exactly on topic, I think this is a good reminder of how domestic violence laws can hurt people years after the fact. No matter how you wish for a relationship to work out, if the police are called, especially more than once, the odds are not in your favor.
If you’re with someone who drives you so crazy that you give them a legitimate reason to call 911, or someone who is so crazy that they will call without a legitimate reason and just flat out lie to get you in trouble, leave. Leave before you go to jail.
Back on topic, if the charges were dropped then there is no legitimate reason to deny you your rights. Best of luck with the appeal.
Cops have the (IMO illegitimate) power to arrest anyone for any reason. Many arrest for false reason, and in this case they will rarely even get a slap on the wrist. They get rewarded for the number of arrests they make, including the ones where charges are dropped.
So in a false arrest case, even if the charges are dropped, you are still punished for life due to the arrest itself. Even if you can get the arrest record expunged (costs thousands in legal bills), the arrest record is maintained in countless websites many of them overseas, which will never remove your mugshot and name from the internet.
To confirm what I just said, check out “Arrest Proof Yourself” by Dale Carson, ex cop, now criminal attorney.
Well, police have the legal power to arrest people for committing crimes according to the laws of whichever jurisdiction granted them their commission. If an officer arrests someone for no actual reason, then this is usually followed by a giant lawsuit against that department. You are right in that the individual officer is rarely punished in terms of being prosecuted, but until you get into big cities like LA/NYC size, the fear of losing half your yearly budget because of an idiot is often enough that the person responsible is either fired or given a desk job. Justice? Maybe not, but it’s what you get with the politicians and judges we have nationwide.
Your words make me think you regard Shawn’s story as a false arrest, meaning an arrest for nothing, or an arrest not supported by the facts. Remember that an arrest is not a conviction. Police do not need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to put you in jail for the night. To make an arrest you need to meet the probable cause standard, and all that requires is that you have more reason than not to believe that the suspect committed the crime.
In domestic assault (In WA we call a physical attack an assault, other places call it battery) cases, this presents a range of potential problems. We all know police get called after the fact, not before. Unless there is video readily available, we have to go off what we see, what we are told, and what evidence we can find. If all we have is that someone called 911, said their spouse hit them, and that it still hurts? By WA law (check your local laws to see if they are different), this is a mandatory arrest.
The only way the accused person is not going to jail is if there is available evidence to show something different happened. Does this mean it’s possible for someone to scratch their own face, and call 911 with a false accusation? Absolutely. The legislature wants police to take DV crimes at face value, because so many people are afraid to report them. If an actual crime is reported and no arrest is made, the victim will probably be attacked again in retribution for calling.
When the cases get to the prosecutor, they have more room to figure out if the case sounds like a false accusation. These are quite often dropped, because they have the power to do that. Some legitimate cases get dropped because the victim either got scared of what would happen if they testify, or because they decided that the person who put them in the hospital really loves them, and would never do it a fifth or sixth time. I’ve even seen what appeared to be legitimate cases dropped because the victim had lied to the court in the past, and could not be considered credible.
The system has many flaws, but not all dropped charges are because the cop didn’t like the way you were looking at him.
Bob, your out of your flippin mind. Your statement of ” They get rewarded for the number of arrests they make, including the ones where charges are dropped.” is a blatant LIE! As a member of the 4th largest Sheriff Dept in Illinois and now a retired Captain, there is no policy I’ve ever seen from any agency that gives “rewards” for arrests. You need to repeat 7th-12th grade. Obviously you know very little of law enforcement and your friend the cop…I’m no attorney but I’ll be you he NEVER was the one who told you that. Enjoy.
Bob, your out of your flippin mind. Your statement of ” They get rewarded for the number of arrests they make, including the ones where charges are dropped.” is a blatant LIE! As a member of the 4th largest Sheriff Dept in Illinois for 30 years and now a retired Captain, there is no policy I’ve ever seen from any agency that gives “rewards” for arrests. We are not like Chucky Cheese where we turn in tickets for “prizes”. You need to repeat 7th-12th grade. Obviously you know very little of law enforcement and your friend the cop…I’m no attorney but I’ll be you he NEVER was the one who told you that. Enjoy.
^^ This – any woman could at any time call the police on any gun owner for no reason, claim she was hit – and bam, say goodbye to your rights and hello to legal costs and your name through the mud.
Thankfully the vast majority of women are not that crazy – but there are some.
I used to think that too,
But, After a very brief but rough marriage to a woman who had no problems calling the cops and falsely reporting that my friend held a gun to her head.. after the swat team surrounded his house and ordered him out at gun point ( It made it on the evening news)… after being arrested and charged with DV, assault 1, and sitting in jail for 15 days ( 100,000 bond )….. after refusing to plea bargain and demanding a jury trial… and, after the prosecuting attorneys office refused to press charges because of lack of evidence. A friend of mine walked into the cop shop and retrieved ALL his guns back, PLUS his ammo, and his concealed pistol permit.
You’re absolutely correct. Think about this: in a number of states, a charge of domestic abuse can be substantiated even if there is no physical proof of violence, as some states’ statutes don’t even require physical violence as an element of the crime. There’ve been people charged with illegal possession of a firearm under the 1996 federal domestic violence law, but who defend themselves against that charge by arguing their state’s statute doesn’t specify actual violence as an element of the crime. In other words, not all domestic abuse convictions are created equal, so they shouldn’t all be lumped into the same category for firearms prohibition purposes. Well.
Federal courts around the country have been mixed in their rulings; but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday this week, 9-0, that domestic abuse is domestic abuse. If you’re convicted and the statute reads that you “knowingly or intentionally” caused “bodily injury” to a domestic partner, then that’s that. It doesn’t matter if there was no actual physical contact. For example, let’s say one chases the other and the other, while fleeing the former, trips and falls and sustains injury. That counts. The SC case this week was Castleman and pertained to his 2001 domestic abuse guilty plea and his 2009 firearms possession. So you’re definitely right, these things can have an impact years later.
Best thing, if your relationship is such that escalation of disputes to emotional redline, on either party’s part, is realistic, then get some counseling to get that under control, or else seriously consider getting out while the getting’s good.
This is very true, Hasdrubal. The State uses vague laws and the mere charge of something untoward as weapons against would-be gun owners and hapless husbands
First they disarm you, then they act upon vague charges to make you disarmable. Or the other way around. If you live in one of these hell-holes, you’re insane if you don’t get out before they turn you over for “re-education”.
Well, I’m usually all for gun ownership… But he was in a phsyc ward for a week. I _really_ don’t want crazy people to carry guns around
So you have determined based on knowing nothing about this man, that because ten years ago he voluntarily had a short stay to get help that he can today be classified as “crazy”?
Really now, tell me more.
“Surmise”, “guess”, “accuse”. Followed by the Scarlet Letter of “counseling”.
If you let these monsters disarm you, your goose is screwed, blued and tattooed, once and for all.
These effers are monomaniacs. Get out of the state before sunrise. I mean, SERIOUSLY.
I really hope that was sarcasm…. If it wasn’t, than you should probably do some research before spouting bullshit. He said he was voluntarily admitted, first of all. He was only there for a week (if he was a genuine danger to himself or others, they would not have let him out). And third, your assumption that he’s completely crazy because he spent one week (OMG! A whole week!) in a psychiatric facility (by his own volition) is disturbing, to say the least. Should anyone taking anti-depressants or mood stabilizers also not be allowed to exercise their rights, even when they pose no threat to anyone else?
Please reconsider your stance on the matter. The reason these mass shooters end up getting to the point where they think slaughtering strangers is a good idea is a combination of our terrible mental health care and the social stigma (which you’re propagating) that discourages them from seeking help in the first place.
I disagree. The reason mass murderers feel it’s OK to kill crowds of people is because they are crazy mass murderers.
I’m all for getting them mental health treatment, but not for arming them.
There were crazies at the time that the Constitution was written yet we still have the 2A limit on government. Go figure. 😉
@ John from ohio…
yes, there were crazy people when the 2A was passed. But… I don’t recall anyone of the time advocating passing out loaded weapons to those crazy people.
Yes, the Constitution limits the power of government, but that is only because the social contract also includes the People’s duty to regulate themselves.
@malcom: Yet, the 2A still reads, shall not be infringed. I think I’ve missed something… was Shawn asking the State of Illinois to give him a handgun or was he asking the State’s permission to be exempt from some of the laws preventing individuals from bearing arms in public? If it’s the latter then what are you going on about with “passing out guns”?
Social contract my eye! The 2A prohibits government from doing that which government is actively doing. lol
Not all mental illnesses are permanent things. With our government’s current view on the matter, we might as well tattoo “crazy” on the foreheads of anyone who ever visits a counselor. Maybe more people would seek help if they knew they wouldn’t be stigmatized for the rest of their life.
But they are not born that way, is my point. If we remove the social stigma that discourages them from seeking help and improve our mental health system, it would make a significant dent in the number of mass killings we have here. Especially as people’s mental health changes over time (just like their physical health). Preventive measures. Help those who are mentally unhealthy to (hopefully) prevent them from getting to the point of mass murder. And of course, proliferate firearms so that those few who slip through the cracks can be limited in the amount of devastation they cause. Not that that really needs to be said; I mean, this IS TTaG 😉
@Malcom: Kindly show me a copy of this ‘Social Contract’ we have all apparently signed, cuz I must have been drunk that night. There is NO social contract. And NOBODY should be the arbiter of who does/doesn’t get to own firearms unless said “who” poses an IMMEDIATE threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone else.
Violence against another is already illegal and you assume risk by living, why can’t we just leave it at that? F*cking bleeding hearts…
Evidently, Denis, you have no awareness of why and under what circumstances people avail themselves of treatment centers.
Well. None of the people I know who I trust with dangerous things ever been to psych wards. Moreover, a few people I know who have been there – they are screwed up in the head. And you can talk all you want that people get better – they don’t. Crazy stay crazy.
Felons shouldn’t have guns. Crazies shouldn’t have guns. And I’m not talking about talking to a therapist about a depression. He said he was admitted. Even if he got there himself. Admitted! You need to be seriously off to get in a mental hospital.
You do know what it takes to get admitted to the standard in-patient treatment facility, don’t you? That’s right – good insurance.
COMMENT MODERATED It’s apparent that this man has done nothing wrong. As long as he’s NOT A FELON then there is NO reason why he shouldn’t be able to carry. There is no harm to himself or others, if that was the case he’d offed himself or others a long time ago. It’s apparent that he passed the federal guidelines to obtain and keep a weapon, so how in the fuck does he not meet a state’s guidelines when the federal one is more strict? IL is just fucked up. Shaun, brah I’m sorry that this happened to you. I will NEVER move to a state that isn’t gun friendly If the government trusted me enough with above top secret information, a machine gun, hand grenades, HE grenades, and such, and expected me to kill others with it, then how in the hell when I come home from doing that job can you be called a terrorist? I refuse to move to a state that doesn’t support MY RIGHTS as I have fought and earned them to carry if I so desire. I fought for your rights to, It doesn’t matter if something happened 10 years ago, what happened in the past is in the past, and it should not be allowed to make up the person you are today. Furthermore, if he was that ‘sick’ and needed help, I would’ve thought that a stay longer then a week would’ve been warranted, that’s just my opinion. It sounds like you are getting the screws put to you. IL is about to lose a huge battle if it doesn’t get it shit together, and get with the program. KY will NOT allow you carry in the state if you have a permit from IL, because IL doesn’t allow KY residents to, last I heard that might’ve changed. I do know that KY state law states that if you come from a state that doesn’t allow a KY resident to carry, or carry CCDW then you will be DENIED that right here as well. It’s in the KRS 500 section. just a little info. Make sure that you appeal it, fight these bastards, good men have fought for you to have this right, and as long as you can pass a federal background check to own one, then there shouldn’t be any issues at the state level either. I would make sure I tell them that, your past medical history shouldn’t be brought into this, as it has nothing to do with it, if I’m not mistaken that is a HIPPA violation that they even know that. So I would look into that as well. That’s guarded private health information, and it should NOT be a determining factor after the fact of 10 years ago. That’s just my opinion. Good luck brother, I look for good news to travel your way!
Doc
OMG! *Sigh*
The “social contract” is a HOAX perpetrated by the state. When we start letting them define the argument, we are in SERIOUS EFFING TROUBLE.
Please understand that every human being has distinct personality traits that can be effected by life and it’s many trials. The ‘Shrink Community’ thinks that everyone alive is an un-diagnosed ‘loon.’
Illinois law concerning CCL was negotiated using give and take. The law has many pitfalls and there are some applicants that are on the margin of the limitations within the new law. Just because the law got passed does not mean the fight is over and public involvement and comment is key to stopping some of the language written by those that think the 2ND Amendment is not applicable to the individual.
JOIN THE NRA! If an Illinois resident, as I am, join the ISRA! These good folks are tireless in their efforts!
ISRA: and a friendlier and more welcoming group you could not find.
Great group of folks! My husband and I have had excellent experiences with everyone we’ve met and all of the activities we have participated in.
Penalizing people for seeking psychological counseling like this will simply make fewer people seek it. And that will surely make us safer!
I have a friend with fibromyalgia. She was put on a drug cocktail that caused her to have a psychotic break. She had to be hospitalized. When they finally figured this out they changed the drug regimen and she quickly returned to normal. Do you think a person who has a non-psychiatric disease and has a breakdown from the drugs he/she is treated with should face a lifetime ban on gun ownership?
“Well, I’m usually all for gun ownership…” I had serious doubts about you being pro 2a after your first sentence. “But” After the first word of your second sentence, I knew all hope was lost.
Sorry to say, but it looks like Shawn is hosed. I can’t think of any jurisdiction under current law which would approve a CCW permit with a DV arrest. In the more anti places, a SWAT team would shoot his dog and seize his guns for that reason.
Sad to say but if your spouse initiates a DV process your gun toting days are over.
He was arrested and the charges were dropped. Most likely it was the stay in the psych ward that led to his denial. That’s what the antis are pushing now, no guns for ANYONE with any psychological problem. Except that any police officer involved in a shooting has to undergo mandatory treatment.
Most people cannot conceive of the kind of pressure the state, though its various agencies, most of them peopled by social workers of one stripe or another, can bring to bear upon a person. This is designed to bring about the very kind of reaction the state is looking for. And they will pounce upon that reaction to disarm you until your dying breath.
It’s diabolical, and it’s monstrous. Once the social worker types get their talons into you, god help you. Your chance of not being disarmed is slim to none.
Really? A DV arrest ruins your chances for a CCW. In all jurisdictions?
Maybe in most of the slave states a DV arrest will void your CCW application / chances. (Of course there will be exceptions for assorted government and LE nomenklatura. Do you really think cops with DV histories lose their jobs?)
I can’t speak to Law Enforcement, but I know a former Airman who went from an E-5 with a clean record to a civilian almost overnight because his ex wife made one phone call. Once he got arrested, it was game over. Her recanting of the complaint didn’t stop the discharge proceedings.
Yes, an arrest alone is all it takes to royally F someone up.
Yes, because of rape and the war on women.
Therefore any time a woman calls the police on you, you can kiss your rights goodbye – as well as expect to have the book thrown at you. She doesn’t have to have evidence or proof, all she has to do is call and say your name.
The even better part? If you as a man are the victim of say having your wife come at you with a baseball bat and you call the police…The police will come to your house and YOU will be arrested and removed from the home.
Because clearly you did something threatening to your woman to cause her to react that way. Therefore you are guilty in this situation as well.
Moral of the story: if you are going to shack up with a woman or get married choose wisely.
Absolutely true. It doesn’t have to be this way, the people who call themselves “government” like it this way because it gives them a larger sense of control. They want people to be walking around on eggshells under their rule.
@Mina: That’s why I recommend the same to men in troubled relationships (sometimes women as well) as I do for those OCing in public… a video or voice recorder is essential in a one party consent state. It’s a shame that we must record our interactions to exercise a basic right; be it the RKBA (in some areas) or the right to live and be left alone free of false arrest.
ABSOLUTELY. Some cannot grasp how diabolical these SOBs can be. Nothing can cause you permanent pain like they can.
This is a sad and troubling thing to understand, but you are NOT paranoid; they really ARE out to get you.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t disagree with the ruling in this case.
In the gun rights debate, people can be divided into three groups: those who believe that everyone should be allowed a weapon regardless of their past history, those who think that no one should be allowed a weapon under any circumstances, and those in the middle who believe in gun rights, but also believe in responsible gun ownership and reasonable regulation.
I put myself in the third group. Believing as I do in responsible gun ownership, and recognizing that a CPL comes with solumn responsibilities that cannot be ignored, I think that the “guns for everyone no matter what” crowd do a disservice to the gun rights movement, and do more harm than good when advocating gun rights to people whose backgrounds have, traditionally, be the source of the anti-gun press for years.
Normally I would not discuss a persons personal problems, but since the person in question has openly submitted his story for public discussion, let’s discuss it.
It is not unreasonable that confinement to a mental facility (whether voluntary or involuntary) is a disqualification for carrying a weapon. And even though the charges were eventually dropped, without knowing the circumstance of the initial charges or why they were dropped, I am not comfortable with someone who has a history of domestic violence carrying a weapon.
Those of us who DO carry, and those of us who promote the safe and responsible use of firearms have a duty to self-police our own constituency.
Excluding this individual and looking at the same situation with a random unknown individual, consider this…
Suppose someone commits a murder. And then it is found out that they had a legal CPL. And then it was found out that they had been in a mental institution and had a domestic violence arrest.
What would that do to the pro-2A movement? and what would that say about the pro-gun crowd that they would have defended the decision to issue such a person a CPL?
I fully disagree with the ruling. He was arrested but the charges were dropped, that means he was innocent in the eyes of the law. Or at least the spirit of the law. What most likely stopped his permit was the stay in the psych ward. Even though that was voluntary. That’s the whole problem with the mental health stipulation in the gun control bullcrap. We hear every single day how most of us have some need for therapy, it’s in the news, on tv talk shows, from friends, etc., etc. Yet if one goes to seek any sort of help suddenly they are not qualified to make rational decisions regarding firearms?? No, it’s total garbage and another way to deny someone their rights. In addition, it WILL force people to deny themselves help for problems, most of which are minor and just some therapy sessions where one only speaks to a professional without ever being prescribed any medication can help.
Malcolm you failed to justify your position.
So an arrest without a conviction 6 years past and a voluntary stay in a mental facility without a court presided adjudication 10 years past are grounds for losing his Second Amendment rights. Should that apply to all his rights too?
An individual cannot loose rights without due process. Ever. Arrests are not due process. Neither is any mental health treatment without a court hearing.
Exactly.
Should he also lose his first amendment rights? Too dangerous to let this dude speak? Too dangerous for him to go to church?
Maybe he should lose his third amendment rights? Might be safer if they quartered soldiers in this guy’s house.
Should he lose his sixth amendment rights? Too dangerous for him to hire lawyers?
Be careful what you wish for Malcolm. Seems you are advocating for the lifelong revocation of another person’s natural rights based on an unsubstantiated charge or a bout of depression for all we know.
When he appeals it, and I hope he does, I hope there is an opportunity for him to compel the state to bring evidence as to why he is a “danger to himself / others / the community.” If the state believes such about him they better send a truck to go pick him up right now, if they are so concerned. But they’re not, are they?
Malcolm, you sound as fearful as the antis. Matter of fact you sound like a gun grabber – “But, but but, what if something bad happens?” “Well, better safe than sorry, ban that dude!”
Hey, if the evidence supports that he is a danger to himself or others. Okay then. It is what it is. But it better be pretty compelling. because revoking someone’s Constitutional rights, the highest law of the land, ain’t just playing for peanuts.
+1
The psych ward stay was indeed a “red flag”, but only so far as the state of Illinois should call him in and investigate further to insure he’s not a raving banana! Once the facts are laid out and he isn’t foaming at the mouth he “should” be eligible.
@Mark: I watched an episode of Dragnet the other day and that same scenario was in one of the scenes. Dragnet, not unlike Emergency, was intended to portray, as closely as possible, correct procedures of that day and time. A character was at the window for his permit to carry a firearm. The character showed himself to be a little “off” so he was denied. That was Southern California then and look at them now. If there’s no better alternative to shall not be infringed and it’s properly implemented as a constitutional amendment, then government must be held to that shall not be infringed prohibition. Although, I don’t think there is a better solution to be found. If there was another, unfettered way for Shawn or anyone else to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in Illinois, I’d not be as vehement about government’s denial of the privilege (I still wouldn’t like it though). But, as it stands, this government privilege is the only way for Shawn or others to simulate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Deny the right and then deny the privilege? How is that even remotely constitutional. At least with government knowing who has a license/permit, it can keep an eye on those it suspects. If government was acting constitutionally, it would never know even one iota of information.
I agree with your concerns, Malcolm. My daughter was married to a man who was never charged with domestic violence, but could have been and should have been. He also voluntarily admitted himself to a psychiatric unit for a few days. Those who think “that’s no big deal – it was only a week….” should remember that in many states one who voluntarily enters can also leave voluntarily and it takes major intervention from others to “keep” him/her in the unit and it’s a very high threshold to keep them hospitalized.
All of which is to say, from my experience I would not (could not) sleep at peace in the same house with him if I knew he had a gun. He is an angry man and what triggers his anger is not always clear.
I have no idea whether the original poster is in that category, but he certainly warrants a close look, and not an easy and automatic approval. In his appeal he needs to bring evidence, including witnesses, that what happened before was time and relationship specific and not an on-going problem.
In our efforts to thwart every effort to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, let’s not make the mistake of thinking there is never a reason to deny someone a permit to carry. I am NOT saying the O.P. is a dangerous person. I have no idea and neither do most of us. But there ARE nut cases out there, and we all know it. How would we expect the state (any state) to screen them out without some kind of procedure like has been initiated with this poster?
“I agree with your concerns, Malcolm. My daughter was married to a man who was never charged with domestic violence, but could have been and should have been.”
I have to ask. Why wasn’t he charged? Was he arrested? Did the legal system fail? It has been known to happen. If he was dangerous enough to cause your family concern, why no charges?
So, Clark, your daughter’s choices in mates, her choices to stay, and your choices in where to sleep for the night somehow invalidate the Second Amendment to the Constitution? How about not staying with a man who demonstrates such issues? Or, do you mean to have us believe that he suddenly, overnight, became this raging beast? Once he shows his nature, how about getting the heck away from him? And, if you don’t want to sleep in the same house overnight, then don’t. If he commits a crime, call the cops. If they don’t arrest him, you and your daughter are still responsible for your own safety… get away from him. Please stop calling for government to violate the Constitution because some don’t want to take proper responsibility for their own safety and actions.
First, John in Ohio, you know NOTHING about me, my daughter, or the circumstances of her marriage or the chronology of how things unwound. Every scenario you assume in your post is wrong. I don’t intend to waste my time correcting facts for you, because it wouldn’t matter to you. You are an absolutist about the 2nd Amendment. I get that. I’ve read your other posts.
I’m not arguing what you and others think “ought to be.” I’m addressing the reality in which Shawn and the rest of us live. Given that the agencies of government issue permits, that courts have held it to be constitutional to require such permits, and acceptable to deny some persons such a permit, what is Shawn to do having been denied a permit? I’m saying that given the structure that is in place in his state, given the premises of that structure (and I KNOW you don’t accept the premises, but that doesn’t help Shawn), it is “reasonable” for someone with the incidents he cited in his account to have been flagged. So what should he do? He should gather all the evidence and witnesses he can to support his contention that “that was then,” and his situation is different now.
@Clark: The only things I “know” about you, your daughter, the circumstances, or the chronology are from what you provided. I commented based upon that information which you provided. If you believe that those data points were insufficient then that’s on you. 😉
You are an absolutist about the 2nd Amendment. I get that. I’ve read your other posts.
Good, so you understand my position. You and your daughter are responsible for your own actions and your own safety. Please stop trying to pawn off that responsibility on big daddy government. You’re advocating theft by government. It’s disingenuous and despicable.
I’m not arguing what you and others think “ought to be.” I’m addressing the reality in which Shawn and the rest of us live.
Baloney! You were spouting off about how someone should be denied the RKBA (or, in this case, a privilege that simulated the RKBA since it’s the only current option under the law). Re-read your own original comment and then compare it to the paragraph referenced here and they are not talking about the same thing. You were clearly trying to shift your and your daughter’s responsibilities to government and now your trying to make out as the victim of government. Incorrectly frame a problem and then blame others seems like the MO to your posts in this thread.
First, why we have a pro-2A movement at all, why aren’t we call ourselves a “protect our rights” movement? We don’t call for abolition or restriction of people’s rights every time a person abuses his rights. Every person is responsible for his own actions. If we admit that the state is somehow responsible that it issued a CPL to a person that later abuses that right, then we admit that the state is actually granting a privilege instead of protecting a right. That is contrary to the Bill of Rights. There is no other right where the action of somebody abusing that right is reflected on further restriction on the larger population.
In the gun rights debate, people can be divided into three groups: those who believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed is necessary to the security of a free state, those who think that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed bears no relevance to the security of a free state, and those in the middle who believe in a free state, but also believe that government isn’t all that bad and a free state can be maintained with government deciding acceptable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
See what I did there, Malcom?
Suppose someone commits a murder. And then it is found out that they had a legal CPL. And then it was found out that they had been in a mental institution and had a domestic violence arrest.
Brown County Ohio… recently… A municipal court judge ordered a man’s firearms returned to him. Law enforcement returned them. He went out and shot someone dead with one of them. It happens and it is what it is. Nobody could read his mind and government is prohibited from infringing even if it could read his mind. Individuals are responsible for their own safety. This is not supposed to be a nanny state. Do you want government that follows the Constitution or do you want mob rule?
What would that do to the pro-2A movement? and what would that say about the pro-gun crowd that they would have defended the decision to issue such a person a CPL?
It’s only really an issue when we have so many people not calling government into account under the Constitution. If you want government to have such power then work towards a constitutional amendment. Until then, people like you are the problem. It’s not government’s fault when an individual does something. It’s the fault of individual. You, and others like yourself, are creating the “problem” by incorrectly re-framing the circumstances under which our government is supposed to operate and then using that incorrect framework to assign blame; all the while rationalizing why the rest of us ought not insist that government follow the Constitution. I won’t stop fighting for Liberty and constitutional government until I’m dead so y’all might as well get used to it.
I wish I can be this eloquent 🙂
+1
Agree 100% The founders only recognized 2 valid reasons for an individual being dis-armed;
1 – When committed to an asylum and,
2 – When incarcerated in prison.
At no other time could government or groups of persons deprive any other person of the ability to protect themselves, their family or their property.
I think that to have obtained mental health help years ago should not automatically disqualify you from gun ownership. The same is true for a dropped DA charge. But I agree a review is in order, I have known a lot of people who have gone through a rough spot in their lives and made a mistake or looked for help for their problems but now are fine.
To automatically ban them for life is not right. Each case should be allowed a review. There are some bad people out there that have not yet been caught, but there are a lot of good people who have tripped up once and they should not be given a life sentence.
Thanks for clarifying that you don’t agree that “rights” are actually rights, kindly choke on your next meal.
The minute I read the words “reasonable regulation”, I am done.
You’re on the other side. Buh bye.
That’s the greatest example of “supposing” someone out of his civil rights I’ve ever seen.
This is the very same type of argument that was used to deprive Black Americans of their RKBA. Which is why the NRA was founded in the first place. Which makes you a racist of the first order.
SHAME ON YOU, you boot-licker. Why don’t you move to the UK or Australia? Or New Zealand? You could hook up with Piers Morgan, and you could have some jollity discussing how to disarm a free people.
Got friends in Illinoistan. They can’t wait to move to America.
BUT, they are allowing a Judge considered legally insane back on the bench
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-judge-wants-back-on-bench-after-insanity-ruling-20140328,0,7568123.story?track=rss
Sure, he’s one of them. If you’re on the disarmament side of the “argument”, the rules don’t apply.
I know absolutely nothing about this individual and his situation. But based on what I know I’m pretty sure he should be denied his right to keep and bear arms.
First, he was denied a government privilege to bear arms concealed in public. As Illinois already denies its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it’s a clear infringement of the Second Amendment many times over.
Should Shawn be denied a government privilege? Based upon the circumstances presented, no, IMHO. However, since Illinois is infringing upon everyone’s right to bear arms, they ought to be generously issuing government privileges in the very least. If they are going to continue to infringe upon the right and continue to be very strict with a privilege then the State of Illinois has a big problem brewing.
Man, I REALLY need to turn up the “sarcasm level” on my posts, because apparently it doesn’t get detected. I mean, well, I said…”I know absolutely nothing…” and then “based on what I know…”
C’mon, people! 🙂
I was making a comment about how some are saying “based on what I know about him, this guy shouldn’t have guns” when they DON’T know ANYTHING about his situation. I mean, one dude even said something about “history of domestic violence” based on one arrest, in which the charges were dropped…which means jack sh*t.
Yes, I missed the sarcasm. But, these allow me to expand the comment so it’s a win either way, IMHO. 🙂
If that’s you view of someone you know nothing about, I believe you should be disarmed too.
What do I know about YOU? You should be disarmed for being an elitist SOB.
Sorry to read of your plight, Shawn. I wish you the best of luck and hopefully some organizations can help you over this hurdle. Thank you for sharing the story with TTAG.
@thread: Just imagine if the actual right to keep and bear arms were restored in Illinois. There would be no government permission slips to obtain so no agency to deny Shawn the right to keep and bear arms. Buy or be given a sidearm and then carry it; it ought to be that simple. Concealed carry licensing reform is a good thing but let us all remember to continue the fight until the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is fully restored in this nation. Shall not be infringed means exactly that and is necessary to a free state!
But Malcolm, isn’t that basically what a right is? You can’t go far down the road of “reasonable regulation” of a right before it is no longer a right in any meaningful sense. It is instead a privilege.
So let’s take your position to a logical end.
You imply that carrying a weapon, as a right, cannot be infringed in any way.
So I will ask this… suppose there is a person who who is psychotic, who believes that invisible beings have possessed all his neighbors, and that he has a duty to cleanse them by shooting them all. (let’s assume, also, that he has not yet been officially ruled insane)
Do you defend this persons right to possess and carry a weapon? I hope not. But under a concept of absolute and unquestioned right, you might argue that there’s no problem with arming them.
Again, I believe that the relationship between citizen and government is only part of the social contract. Government is limited because the real social contract is between the individual and others in their community.
And defending the right of a crimminal, or a murder to possess a weapon is, in my opinion, unreasonable
It seems the social contract would imply that those who know this individual get him the help he needs. That requires a courts adjudication. One person cannot claim another person is crazy without proof.
Should be no reason free people to not be able to fully exercise their rights. If not, they are not free, and even tough we say that they paid their debt to society in fact they continue to pay all their life. How is that for cruel and unusual punishment?
So, Malcom, how long is the expected lifespan (or at least life not in lawful custody) of this psychotic strawman surrounded by an armed society freely keeping and bearing arms without government infringement? You see, the infringements that you call for CREATE the very strawman argument that you trotted out. The very rare frankly psychotic armed individual will be neutralized by some form or another in a truly armed society. Additionally, these would be even rarer occurrences than they are now. You’re advocating a nanny state which is incompatible with a free people and contrary to the precepts of individual liberty.
Malcolm is an MDA troll… He clearly has no interest in RKBA but is making a good play at “reasonable regulation.”
Put some cream on ir and it’ll go away in a few days
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Where does it say, “shall not be infringed, unless Joe Blow says you are not fit to bear arms”?
I DEMAND an answer from you.
Malcolm: It is a right. Not a privilege. A right.
If that really so widely agreed upon to be unworkable, then the constitution has a mechanism for changing that: the amendment process.
Freedoms always involve risk and cost, Malcolm. No matter what right you are talking about. That is an inexorable truth that will never change.
Amen! Well stated, Peter.
I think Malcolm needs to be disarmed. Because *I* said so. Malcolm, tell us why you shouldn’t be disarmed….
Hmmm I don’t think revoking a CCL based off a visit to a mental institution should be a valid reason to revoke it, as for your battery case, I don’t care, the fact that charges were dropped tells me that they basically drug up any old reason not to give it to you.
A weeklong stay at a mental institution goes a little beyond a ‘visit’.
Ten years ago is a hell of a lot longer than a week. No one knows his situation. Perhaps a family member died and he couldn’t hand the grief. Maybe he saw a horrific car accident and had some mild PTSD. No one knows, so we can’t say for sure. Except that if it was only a week and it was ten years ago, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t anything serious enough to keep him from a CCW.
It can take a week to find the right level of medication he needed. Blood work every morning, watching TV all day until the doctor is happy with chemical levels. Changing meds if one causes an adverse reaction. Length of stay is pretty meaningless.
Oh, Jesus Christ. I knew Hannibal would be along to defend this ****.
Hannibal has just showed his true colors. I knew this was coming. Some for Hannibal, but not for us.
Stinking hypocrite.
Anti-freedom much?
Just an FYI [from reader CL]:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that offensive touching can qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” that disqualifies the perpetrator from owning a gun.
Click here for an article on the ruling.
As murky as the definition may be it still required a conviction.
Right. The SCOTUS case didn’t involve an arrest or a bare allegation. It involved a conviction based on a guilty plea.
Be sure to not have any weapons around the house! and get cookies and milk for the SWAT team!
Send the dogs to a neighbor’s house, too.
Might as well send the house to his neighbor, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6KaRryQBac
(SWAT sets house on fire, shoots man)
I suspect this is a set-up by a pro-gun control group. Keep that in mind when commenting.
So? Rosa Parks was a set up too. Does that change the fact that the law is wrong?
Voluntarily going to see a counsellor? No problem. I definitely don’t want to see that normal, healthy act used to deny firearms ownership.
But… Commitment? Even if voluntary, I dunno…
It would really depend on what it was for. Without more data, it’s silly to speculate. Was he worried that he might be having a problem with booze, but he’s been clean and sober for 10 years with no urges to drink? That’s very different from his having heard voices telling him to kill, but the meds (mostly) keep that from happening now.
Know what I mean?
A voluntary stay, no matter the length is not “commitment”.
I find it remarkable that many writing comments do not understand that “confined to a mental institution” means involuntary confinement, not the seeking of mental (often ‘neurological’) studies or diagnosis.
Some hospitals have psychiatric wards which do not admit involuntary patients. We’ve had US Senators that spent more than a week in a psychiatric clinic, not to mention a few CEOs.
In marriage number 1 we went to marriage counseling(if you could call it that). The counselor made it out that I had the problem for being pissed that my now ex had been banging some dude she met on the Internet while I was on an year long overseas tour. Imagine if the counselor somehow listed me as being a threat to my self because I was angry at my ex and eventually filed for divorce. I protected myself from false DV charges by always having multiple male and female friends over when she came over to get her stuff. It could have easily been bye bye gun rights without due process if I had not taken precautions.
My cousin admitted himself for a similar but much worse situation. Without going into details he sought help. Now should he be denied a permit because his life was a mess almost 20 years ago? I Think not. Sometimes life becomes too much to deal with without help, but that does not turn you into a life long threat. Mental illness should not be a rights denial catch all.
You better check out what the BATF is proposing. This guy will be denied forever more.
you act like that would fly in NH or Fl… Youd have to appeal it in both cases. Wedon’t cotton to domestic violence.
He was never found guilty of Domestic Violence. All the arrest means is that the cops took someone to jail. They will do that for no reason at all.
The decision is a fair and valid ruling, and on the initial view of Shawn’s own admissions I would support the decision of the law enforcement agency’s objection to his license application. This is covered by the 5th Amendment (due process of law). His stay at the mental health facility is the kicker, I’m guessing. If he can show in court (also due process of law) that the stay was not in relation to any violence issues and can provide testimony from a certified mental health professional that he is not a danger to himself or others then his CCL will probably be able to be issued. It’s a fair ruling. What many 2nd Amendment supporters forget that while the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that according to the 5th amendment your life, liberty (rights), and property may be taken from you via due process of law. BUT you may have your rights restored via the same due process of law.
There’s more than one amendment to the Constitution for a reason, people.
So automatic denial by the State until the individual proves otherwise? That does not seem right to me. Seems like rights denied until due process. I wonder who pays for the hearing and the lawyer’s fees?
The burden of proof needs to be on the state and not the individual. Otherwise we may as well change the name of our country to Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик.
Pretty awesome that you know how to spell CCCP in Russian.
If the man’s not in jail or a Psych ward (or on probation) *Right Now*, he should have all of his liberties because he’s a free man.
+1 (Except the probation part… if a person is to be deprived the use of arms then the State is responsible for that person’s safety.)
It is very simple. NO denial of rights without due process. Arrest without conviction does not equal to due process. A stay at a mental health facility with out a court adjudication of danger to himself or others is not due process.
I think something about the commitment process is very relevant here. I took Forensic Psychology in college, and was taught what the average length of a commitment hearing is.
Anyone here happen to know what the average length of a commitment hearing is?
[SCROLL DOWN]
THIRTY SECONDS.
FYI you might want to consider pulling this article and re-posting with proper redaction. A sharp eye can make out Shawn’s full name and address quite easily.
I’m not worried. You’re welcome to come visit, if you like. I have a spare bedroom.
Glad to hear you aren’t concerned Shawn; I too like to live dangerously.
“Shall not be infringed”, what is it in that statement that people do not understand??
It’s fear and rationalizing away that fear, calling it “reasonable”. Apparently, many are too cowardly to be free. 😉
It is clear to me that many people, otherwise undistinguished, feel that their life-long record of never having been arrested, never being accused of domestic violence, really does make them special in a way that no other evidence in the world confirms. Americans have, many of them, gone crazy with vindictiveness that expresses nothing more than the quiet misery of their own little lives.
To ban someone from a work opportunity because they were arrested implies the employer believed the person is a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty? Apparently not so much. Banned from employment or gun rights ten or twenty years after an ungraded misdemeanor flowing from a minor incident? This makes any sense? Only to very small souls.
“Shall not infringed” should mean that we don’t even need a fracking piece of paper “granting” us the “privilege” to carry a firearm.
Nationwide constitutional carry is the only way to solve this problem.
Aye! Shall not be infringed means all firearm laws stricken from the books, coast to coast. If someone commits an actual criminal act then they ought to be charged and found guilty of that act.
Committing one’s self to a mental institution for a week is a pretty significant indicator that you’ve had something screwy going on in your life. It’s not like seeing a psychologist for awhile. The domestic violence might also be a valid issue; often people will plea out to a lesser charge to try and avoid the penalties of a DV conviction. So I think it’s impossible to judge how reasonable this is unless we were to know a lot more about the mental issues and the facts surrounding the DV case (and what the defendant admitted to in court).
The fight in Illinois is to restore right, and the focus should probably be on restoring them to the largest group of people possible… like the 96.5% that haven’t had a week-long stay in a mental institution and 92.74% with no domestic violence record.
It’s not government’s place to decide. The whole purpose in shall not be infringed is so that government isn’t the decision maker when it comes to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why don’t you take an honest approach and openly support a constitutional amendment?
OH GOD, yes!
+100000000
What we could really use in this country is a removal of all illegal and illegitimate firearms laws. No more of this mala prohibita bullshit.
If you’re a freeman, you should have all rights, and absolutely no restrictions on your freedoms as long as you’re not damaging a 3rd party.
Or a second.
Length of stay means nothing. It can take that long to find the right level of the correct medication. But I forget , you government employees have magic skills. Pound sand flatfoot.
Committing one’s self to a mental institution for a week is a pretty significant indicator that you’ve had something screwy going on
Had. Read your own words.
So I ask, sarcastically: if they have determined that there exists a preponderance of evidence that he is a danger to himself and others and/or he’s a threat to public safety, as the letter states, why not arrest him and lock him up? Either his is a threat or he isn’t. They claim that he is, just to deny his carry permit, but they won’t go further than that. Well, if he is as dangerous to himself and others as they claim, shouldn’t he be incarcerated? Does he have a history of mental illness? Was he treated for anything other than the brief short stay? Why was he there? Are there any medical evaluations proving that he is mentally unstable? Something tells me the answer to all of these questions is no, but the folks at that particular government agency don’t want to deal with it and decided to punt. I think this should be addressed on appeal and most likely overturned.
The sarcastic question is a good one. If government is depriving Shawn of the right to keep and bear arms then Shawn must be in lawful custody, right? No? Well then, they have an agent of government with him for his protection 24/7, right? No? Glossing over the whole shall not be infringed thing, how is it acceptable that government is denying this man his best manner of defending himself but not doing everything reasonable to insure his safety? Isn’t that negligent, immoral, and reprehensible of government?
The decision is grossly unfair and an unconstitutional infriengment on Shawns rights.
That isn’t knee jerk bravado. It is a logical determination.
One: define “domestic violence” as a crime. I can’t do it, and I challenge anyone else to do so concisely. Is it withholding the credit card form your wife? Getting pissed when your wife is caught in bed with the pool boy? Sure, all of us can define a man assaulting a woman as DV fairly easily. But that’s not what generates most of the cases. Most DV cases tend to be situations where a wife needs an advantage over the ex husband in court and she files one on advice from a lawyer/associate, or things get heated and the spouse decides to call 911 to show the other party who’s REALLY holding the cards.
In both cases, the man or woman being targeted is hosed. Among other consequences, theyr either banned for life in the event of a conviction or plea deal, or are disqualified by the arrest alone. I knew an Airman who lost his guns, his wife, and his job in the same month because of one phone call and one lie by his ex wife.
No trial. No court. Just stripped of your rights as surely as if you were a subject in England and pissed in the Queens breakfast.
Problem two: so what , he spent a week in the psych ward. I know people who spent time longer than that drunk, and you don’t see a mad rush to take guns away from alcoholics and college students. Dirty secret – a lot of people are on antidepressent meds. Certainly a few are commenters here,if the statistics have any validity. Yet no blood runs in the street from all the folks on and off of mood altering medications shooting each other.
Alchohol ,on the other hand, can make someone a threat to themselves and society without the need for a firearm. Despite that fact there’s no squad of police officers kicking in doors to take away ARs from consistent drinkers.
Three: the government has no right or standing to regulate concealed carry via permits no matter how they’re issued.
This incident shouldn’t have happened at all.
+1000!
I’d be interested in learning, precisely, the details of his domestic violence arrest.
While I suppose we are supposed to take the claims he made in sharing this letter at face value, I’d like to see, personally, the “evidence” of which there is a “preponderance” by which the decision was made to deny his application for his CC license.
I’d love to see that evidence too…this letter is all I got. That’s part of the process I’m in right now.
Good luck with your appeal of the decision.
I’m sure I was just been lucky on the DUI bit early in life. I am disgruntled, as they say, at the way the US has turned into Nottingham as far as the “for practical purposes” outlawry practice goes.
It is my curse to know drunks in high places. They have guns and keep their titles. Life.
“I’d be interested in learning, precisely, the details of his domestic violence arrest. ”
And why is that, exactly? Because it’s any of your effing business?
I’m sorry to hear that Shawn and wish you the best of luck in appealing. The right thing to do is always to seek help when it is needed, it’s just unfortunate that the stigma of mental illness is so strong that a one week voluntary stint in a psychiatric hospital a decade ago can strip you of constitutional rights and leave you branded “dangerous”. As for the arrest, I believe our legal system stipulates “innocent until proven guilty”, so that should be a non-factor.
“Seeking help when it is needed” is just the sort of problem that got him disarmed in the first place.
Your eyes would be truly opened if this ever happened to you. Because it happened, he must have deserved it, right? I really hope it happens to you. It’s called karma.
The lesson here is not what you think it is. The lesson is NEVER voluntarily commit yourself.
Bollocks. I know people that smoked so much weed they went crazy and took a baseball bat to everything in the house. Cops called, days in a psych ward, got out, never touched the stuff for the rest of their life, and they are as sane as the next guy.
And charged with domestic violence? I know a guy who got his ex-wife locked up overnight for breaking his cell phone. So now she should never be able to own a firearm? Or carry one?
Oh well…
JESUS. The old “evil weed from Hell” meme again. Do you ever listen to yourself?
I like how they determine you are a threat to others and yourself. I like how they think you are going to go through the process of getting a license, back ground check, and THEN buy a pistol to shoot yourself or someone else. Wouldn’t it be quicker to use a butcher knife or baseball bat. Once again the laws only hurt the honest person. How many rifles do you own? They don’t say anything about confiscating those if you have any. Remember you are innocent until proven a threat to someone. Good luck
I feel for you Shawn, and I hope that you stick with the fight.
I’ve been fighting the denial of my FOID card for the last 6 years. The reason: I VOLUNTARILY checked myself into the psych ward to get my head straight. I’m currently on the first step of the appeals process (the second time around). I’m anticipating that I will be denied this appeal too.
Nevertheless, I’m excited about the prospect of getting back out on the range – this process has certainly taught me the virtue of patience.
Good luck Shawn, stand strong!
If you read through the disqualifications being admitted to any phyc ward for any amount of time automatically Denis you a carry permit.DUI will Denis you carry permit.If you have any kind of record even 5th degree assault is automatically a denial. Folks its for protection of someone who should not have a legal carry permit. Would you just like the process to be lax and just allow person who ohh gee a record but he has been clean for few years but gets in fights onece in awhile. It only takes one bad egg that is allowed carry to spoil it for everyone.
It only takes one bad egg that is allowed carry to spoil it for everyone.
I don’t carry moral responsibility for anyone but me. One bad egg should spoil it for the bad egg, not for me or Shawn or anyone else. The day that one bad egg can spoil the Constitution is the day when we’re not living in America.
Well stated, Ralph. Thanks!
Sometimes it sound to me like people think that this is permission from Mommy. We aren’t children and don’t need a nanny, state or otherwise.
Please check your facts, you are mistaken. A psychiatric stay only prevents acquiring a FOID (a prerequisite for applying for the CCL). Court ordered (not voluntary) treatment for alcoholism or drugs are grounds for denial. As well, for the most part only convictions (within the last five years) are grounds for denial. The only arrests which can be grounds for denials are for gang-related activity.
Ken, your post was hard to read.
Convictions not arrests. An individual must be convicted of a qualifying crime before his rights can be stripped. A court of law must adjudicated and individual as mentally unstable or as dangerous persons (varying locales have different definitions.)
A government entity cannot be allowed to claim someone is prohibited without evidence. A suspicion does NOT provide just cause.
For those who have expressed sympathy and support (or debated on my behalf), I thank you. Continue being active voters and supporting individual rights in all their forms.
To those who dealing with similar issues, I feel your pain and empathize.
For those who fear I have a violence problem, I would remind you that I was not acquitted of a crime; the charges were dropped before it even got to that point. As well, the crime in question would have been a misdemeanor, and even had I been convicted, the language of Illinois’ carry bill only stipulates denials for convictions in the past 5 years. Furthermore, it’s very very easy to have someone arrested for domestic violence. Just call the cops, have a plausible story, and then disappear without a trace, and you have guaranteed a frustrating 3 months and $2500 in legal bills for someone you don’t like (at a minimum).
For those who fear my psychiatric stay, again I point out that no due process has taken place to adjudicate me as anything other than rational and sane. And just like an arrest, it’s not particularly difficult to trigger an involuntary admission by a concerned party, or a forced stay once there.
And yes, I agree with those making the point that if I am, in fact, a danger to myself, others, or society, then perhaps I should not be allowed to own weapons at all. Or be allowed to drive or operate machinery. Or vote. Etc, ad nauseum.
All of that aside, most of the reason I shared this information is to point out the lack of transparency or due process involved in the denial itself; this is the only paperwork I have received since applying for the permit online 3 months ago. It does not mention any details of my case or which county even made the objection. I cannot even begin to put together an appeal at this point as I have no argument to attempt to disprove. I can only guess at what reasons may have lead to the appeal, which I listed above, but it could also be mistaken identity, general error, or who knows what. Keep in mind that I had to pay $225 for a 16 hour class (which was 45 minutes away), bring the gun and ammo for said class, $60 for fingerprinting, $150 application fee, and then wait three months to get this information.
As a final note, I want to point out the following to out-of-staters: the denial comes after an objection by a police jurisdiction and a review by the Review Board. This is not the whim of a single individual. As well, Cook County is not (legally) allowed to object based on events which happened outside of their jurisdiction, and my guesses for denial occurred elsewhere. I am also glad there at least is an appeals process, though I’m not holding my breath for a favorable decision from the Cook County Circuit Court.
Feel free to ask any questions, though I won’t necessarily answer all of them.
Illinois CCL law
Good luck getting this all sorted out and don’t bother listening to the haters/trolls, Shawn.
The comments section on this post has let us know who truly values due process, the rule of law, and the second amendment and who doesn’t.
Definitely reach out to the folks on IllinoisCarry.com if you haven’t already.
Tons of great resources there for you. Good luck, man.
Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean just that. It’s not innocent but we’re suspicious so let’s pigeonhole you as “potentially dangerous” and deny you your rights years down the road. This fellow’s charges were dropped, and thus he was deemed innocent in the eyes of the law. Give the man his CCW permit, and if he acts violently in the future, the law will send him to prison for his actions. We’re supposed to arrest people for actually committing crimes in this country; the juvenile and paranoid hunch that “somewhere someday someone might do something bad so let’s ban away” is bull. You can not wave the magical wand of legislation and make all the scary people, guns, or whatever go away; that’s not how life in the real world works.
My guess is his history makes it an automatic denial. He may very well be able to successfully appeal it as then they will go into details. Right now they only have one line police report details.
It may very well only be the DV, since how would the state police (or whoever performs the background check in IL) know about his voluntary hospital admission? Especially with HIPAA?
Well the hospital stay showed up on my FOID application, so it’s definitely out there.
It is a good thing that this individual was denied his permit to carry. Why would anyone think that somebody with these things in their background should be carrying a weapon?
Why do you think that he shouldn’t? Be specific.
Pay good attention to your karma, because it will come back upon you tenfold.
Sorry to hear you were denied CC L. Do I understand you have a FOID CARD? If so I don’t understand why you were denied. I also live in Cook County,Illinois. Haven’t tried to get a CCL($). Trying to move to Indiana a mile away. From what you wrote I don’t see you as some big threat. I have a crazy Ex-wife who accused me of all kinds of crap that NEVER happened. GOOD LUCK SHAWN. Illinois sucks.
According to some here, accusation is enough. God, what country are they living in? Surely not the America of our forebears.
This is an example of “the weak proxy problem.” What you want to know is unknowable, so you use proxies. Sometimes the proxies are weak. Sometimes the *need* to use weak proxies makes room for shenanigans.
Elaborating, when issuing carry licenses you want to know whether this guy will shoot up a school. (Back in the day is was “start shooting from a bell tower.”) You probably want to know if s/he’ll handle the tool safely. You may want to know if s/he’ll only use this tool & its power in harmony with the other folks you agree with – some folks would like to know s/he’ll stand with neighbors to keep the riots out of their block, other folks that s/he won’t.
In all events you want to know something about the future, which isn’t here yet. So, you nominate some proxies. It’s like using a college degree as a proxy for, more or less “takes direction, can mostly show up, and has any degree of follow-though at all.”
Past legal or psychiatric events are weak proxies *exactly* like “college degree required” for so many jobs where the curriculum doesn’t apply, post-college experience trumps the degree, or both. People only sometimes pick proxies because they are accurate. Often it’s because they are easy. With a degree or arrest you have the advantage of citing another authority – it’s those guys over there.
Of course with guns the proxies have been chosen to sound good in campaign ads, and to further the march toward complete disarmament of citizens. As the laws and regulations develop, pay great attention to the proxies & processes. As with carry in DC, “a right delayed is a right denied”.
In the contest of ideas, let the BGs pose their proxy first. They’re looking to build in stealth prohibition. After they’ve committed call them out & be sure to use “Jim Crow” and the legal shenanigans in some of the reconstruction era confederate states. Only *after* they’ve committed.
Our colleague here may make a useful test case. Voluntary inpatient psychiatric care is certainly too broad a proxy. *Arrest* likewise.
+1
Brad, I know guys who had girlfriends call the police on them because, they were abusive, when in actuality they never laid a hand on them. As for the mental side of things, plent of people self admit due to depression, if that was the case, any ways from the information provided it seems as if both reasons were not all that serious and the state is just trying to find a way to prevent the reader from carrying
In Texas, it’s not so much the domestic battery that would block your application, although that would certainly give cause for pause and further evaluation. As those charges have been finally resolved and in your favor, for having been dismissed, then you’d be clear from that perspective.
What would likely block your application here, would be the psychiatric hospitalization; albeit voluntary. Even if 10+ years ago, that would be sufficient evidence in Texas that you suffer from a mental condition which inhibits your ability to exercise sound judgment and all the rest. We have an appeals process, however, in which you could present current evidence from a licensed physician in your favor regarding your current condition. The State may or may not accept that. If you’re showing up in NICS as a federally regarded “mental defective”, because of that long ago voluntary admittance, then Texas is going to deny your application, too, as you must not be a federally prohibited possessor in order to get a license to carry.
However, as recently as this year, Texas’ denial of one particular person’s application on federal mental defective grounds was overturned by a Texas state appeals court (Second Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, TX.) I know this is a Texas state case, but the court’s ruling was based on federal law regarding psychiatric confinement, its implications for firearms ownership and federal supremacy. There may be some relevance to your case and some arguments may apply. The case citation is Texas Department of Public Safety v. Randolph, 02-13-00025-CV, if you’d like to hand it off to your attorney.
Best of luck to you.
What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? It sounds to me like they branded you “guilty” based on a ten year old arrest followed by a complete dismissal of charges. You guys have pretty much summed it all up but I had one thing to say. It’s our government trying to “prevent” violence that might not even have the potential to become an issue. What happened to integrity? What happened to letting people show you what they’re made of? I have been shooting for 20+ years and owned guns for ten years and I am sure most of you have owned them for probably double to triple that number. Why is it that ALL OF US can manage to not go on rampages for 200+ years, but a few folks do and now the 200+ years of gun owners that DIDNT are being held to a standard where we are almost EXPECTED to go nuts and kill people!!! FOCUS ON REAL CRIMES, NOT FICTIONAL CRIMES THAT “MIGHT” TAKE PLACE. From the moment we purchase a firearm, its like they are waiting for us to slip. As if its a matter of time. They are working so hard to prevent gun owners from being statistics that they are letting real criminals walk right by. Legal firearms are not the issue here. The fact that I can go to downtown Sacramento with a thousand dollars and find a fully auto AK before I get to Starbucks….. Thats the issue. Shawn, I don’t know you. I probably never will. What I do know is that you are being wronged by the bastards that are proving that gun control is a failure. Hopefully soon they will stop trying to PREVENT folks from getting firearms and treat the source of the problem:PEOPLE. What happened to holding people accountable? What happened to letting people be free and punishing the ones who COMMIT CRIMES?! Possibly AFTER IT HAPPENS?! Rather than assuming we are all trying to go on rampages…seems a little twisted, no? Good luck Shawn, I’m sure you’re a decent dude. I am sorry that our government is so stupid. I’m probably gonna move to AZ or CO. Maybe not CO…..let’s see how the stoners do with firearms first.
Shawn,
Good luck to you. It’s possible the CCL Review Board is so overwhelmed with LEA objections they don’t have time to examine them and make determinations on the merits, so they’re just rejecting them all and letting the courts sort things out.
The CCL Review Board is appointed by our hoplophobic governor so they’re certainly not going to err on the side of 2A.
Please keep us in the loop, if you decide to take this to court.
So Shawn was involved in an altercation that resulted in his arrest, and then voluntarily committed himself in a mental hospital. . . How many of the readers of TTAG have been arrested for domestic violence, or have been so unstable that you needed to be treated for mental illness? I want every person who has been diagnosed with mental illness or disability to be prohibited from possessing arms.
And you just think it’s so simple as that, huh?
Tom
I want every person who has been diagnosed with mental illness or disability to be prohibited from possessing arms.
As one of those individuals, I say… “Sod off!”
“.. a preponderance of evidence that you pose a danger to yourself or others….
Danger to yourself is only used legally if the person denied posed a danger to himself, as in suicide. So that voluntary admission to a ward might have been for a suicide attempt. That would be terminal as far as CCW is concerned.
Because in Amerika, you are not allowed to temporarily have suicidal thoughts. Farewell, America; we hardly knew ye.
Domestic assault and voluntary psycho stint, 6 long years ago, I mean ages ago………..”that’s it”, ha………….I don’t want this guy to have a gun. He should find a new hobby that doesn’t involve projectiles………or people.
On the other hand, perhaps the 10 days was part of a plea deal and the bitch girlfriend started the fight and deserved to have her antagonizing mouth shut up for her.
It could go either way here, but looks like if you want to play with guns, stay away from all dealings with law enforcement at all costs.
+1,000,000
I think the Chicago Police acted correctly given what he’s said. The domestic violence thing, if charges were dropped, shouldn’t factor – but the looney bin??? C’mon, now. Why is anyone outraged that someone who’s been in the looney bin was denied a carry permit?
I agree. Anyone and everyone falsely accused should not be given the benefit of the doubt! There is no such thing as a lying, vindictive partner who levies a false charge. Charged and committed is automatically guilty.
Gott im Himmel, in a just world, it would happen to you, so that your eyes would be opened to reality.
But the world is unjust, and it won’t.
So he should not have been, but he should have been?
That’s known as Cognitive Dissonace, and a court could disarm you for that?
Would that support your position, or not?
You sound as if you should be disarmed for that.
He was *voluntarily* committed 10 YEARS ago. How is that relevant now?
Because they found an excuse to deny it to someone, that’s how. Anal retentive government at its best.
Why is anyone outraged that someone who’s been in the looney bin was denied a carry permit?
And yet here YOU are writing an opinion… ROTFLMAO!
Huh, “play with guns”, eh?
Do you even know what the following statement means and its importance to Liberty?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Possibly may issue. In the 22nd century. HA! HA! You have been referred to our Thought Crimes Unit.
You are hereby ordered to report to our Anger Management Unit. Don’t call us; we’ll come for you.
(Note, I live in Chicago.) I think one thing most people are forgetting is the politics involved here, and the debate inside the Illinois legislature about CCW after the court’s ruling. In my opinion, baby steps are they way to go, and if that means in the first few years NOT letting people who voluntarily committed themselves not having a concealed weapon, I’m for it.
Let’s say he was granted a CCW, and then subsequently committed a crime. The media would be all over it, and legislators would pass amendments to the law making it even harder for most people. Illinois was the last and toughest state for this to pass, and it’s going to be a long road ahead to secure future rights in this state. Don’t give the anti-gunners any more ammunition than need be.
What was he self committed for? We don’t know and that can have an impact. If he told the head doctors “I want to hurt people” I wouldn’t want him having a gun, even if he was just having a bad moment and is fine 99.999% of the time.
Furthermore, I doubt we’re actually hearing the whole story here. Think about it, most people who have dealings with mental health institutions and are accused (guilty or not) or domestic violence, most likely have had other brushes with the law. (Anybody want to bet against me on this one?) These probable other brushes, even if never arrested, could have an impact here.
Finally, for all those who advocate on this blog “Shall NOT be Infringed”, please remember that even the first amendment has it’s limits when it comes to public saftey, and unless you’re picking up a gun and in active combat for your rights, you’re just being an armchair commando. Failure to fight for what you believe in means you don’t really believe in it. OR, if you think going through legislation and all of that is the way to fight……then you must accept infringements in the meantime.
Should someone who committed drug related homicide for a Mexican cartel but released on parole have unlimited access to a gun? Most people would say no, i.e. reasonable infringement is necessary.
Unless you want people yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, having some restrictions is necessary in a civilized society.
If you have read comments on TTAG over the last few months and still don’t see the incorrect statements in your post then nothing will help you see the truth. I don’t have time (cough medicine and tylenol hour here) to correct the mistakes. When I’m feeling better I might come back and set things straight, line by line. Then again, I might not bother to waste my time.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed. You aren’t eating an elephant… you are creating another one. When the People accept a privilege and believe that they’re exercising a right, the courts will be extremely reluctant to rule in favor of the actual right to keep and bear arms in the future. There wasn’t concealed carry licensing law in Ohio before about 2005. Prior to the law, we carried concealed relying upon a “prudent man” affirmative defense should we get jammed up in court (never happened to me or practically anyone I knew). Ohio has also always been an open carry state. Since so many of us concealed for so long, the general population seemed to forget that many were carrying. Instead of simply striking a problematic line or two from our state law, the legislature (backed by pro-CHL groups) enacted licensing law. Now, it is even more difficult to get those so head-over-heels in love with the license to realize that so many of us were already lawfully carrying without licenses before the laws and that open carry is completely legal and necessary in Ohio. We’ve created another elephant in Ohio. Concealed carry law is a good first step in Illinois but if y’all don’t remind each other with extreme regularity that shall not be infringed means just what it says, then y’all will be creating your own elephants too.
Its called a U Haul. Rent one, throw your crap inside, and get as far away from these slave states as you can. Or quit whining about being subjected by your state overlords and suck it up. What the hell do you expect in Illinois. Obama was created there for crying out loud.
Methinks if Delbert was around in 1774, he would have told the rebels to suck it up, quit whining about King George, or just move out of the British colonies.
Illinois has many attributes. Rich natural resources and a lot of great people. We also happen to have a blood-sucking parasite called Chicago. Some will run away. Many already have. Some will stay and fight. There is a lot here worth fighting for.
If I was around in 1774 you knaves would be trading your women for my rusty Brown Besses.
I think we can all look back at different circumstances in our lives and find instances where unintended consequences were a result of trying to do the right thing. In todays world where right is forced to be accepted as wrong, and wrongs are forced to be accepted as right.. we have to use our own sane judgment..
The domestic battery was dropped. But being admitted voluntarily for a week to a psychiatric ward ten years ago could be construed as anything without the facts…Look.. 40 yrs ago I had an aunt that was found unconscious on her kitchen floor by a neighbor. The stove pilot light went out and she was passed out from the fumes…that was the short version..they stuck her in the nut house for observation because they thought she was suicidal . the details were she was old..and so was the stove..she wasnt suicidal, Just slow moving around..Fact is, the guy didnt say why he was in the psych ward..Just that he was there.. that doesnt mean squat… its like saying if you are sitting in jail you must have done something wrong and we all know that Jail is just a blanket answer warehouse.. it doesnt mean anything unless you are convicted…
The guy should elaborate on why he admitted himself… maybe he was dupped into going by some slick talking shrink.. maybe he had a moment of weakness.. and didnt understand the consequences..
And in which universe is it any of your business?
Being a dick isnt enough?.. you gotta show everybody too?
Why are the man’s psychiatric records any of your business? Answer the question.
Welcome to the 5150 effect.
PTSD, you’re no CCW for you. Angry spouse had significant other locked up because she mad, no CCW for you. Kids make a move to take dad’s assets by having him declared mental, no CCW for you.
I won’t go on, but i’m sure we can think of a metric shit ton of other ways to fall prey to the 5150 effect.
I love how so many are assuming the worst about the people who support the decision of the board. This is due process. The board, based on whatever facts of the review request they received from the law enforcement agency, decided that a denial was justified. On the bare bones of the facts that have been presented I would agree with that decision. And, apparently, so do a lot of other people who, like me, are STRONG proponents of the protectons provided by the 2nd Amendment. The board may have had the same amount of information we have been provided, ie: DV arrest and voluntary committal, and that’s it. Now, based on the DUE PROCESS as established in the law, he has the right to appeal their decision. Just as he would in a criminal trial, Shawn must now provide evidence as to why his CCL should NOT be denied (or, show why he did not commit said crime, to continue the criminal trial anology).
Let the process play through, gather your evidence to show you are not a danger to yourself or others, and good luck, Shawn.
who, like me, are STRONG proponents of the protectons provided by the 2nd Amendment.
Which part? The well regulated militia part? The necessary to the security of a free state part? Or, perhaps the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?
Uh, no you aren’t! Just because you might *think* you are and claim you are doesn’t mean that you are. The State of Illinois infringes on the 2A by prohibiting any form of unlicensed (right) keeping and bearing of arms. It then denied Shawn the privilege of licensed bearing of arms. This is clear infringement.
That is the problem with Conceal carry and any other pro gun, second amendment dumb excuse for wanting to get your hands on a gun, no matter what you have done, even it is proven that you are a risk, you need to get your hands on a gun. Is your life that empty that it revolves around a gun and now you need to run to the NRA. God! the gun companys have you all brainwashed to buy their stuff. The NRA is just another drug pusher and that drug is fear. There is something mentally wrong with people that want to walk around our world with concealed guns. You should all be denied because there is something mentally wrong with you people. Get another Hobby collect stamps!!
Troll. Did a bus drop off about 50 others like you here (suddenly), or what?
LEFTWING TROLL ALERT. Oh well…the price of popularity.
Thats the problem with tying mental health with handgun licensing/permits to carry. We all agree that crazy people who are unbalanced and don’t know right from wrong shouldn’t have access to guns. But the issue becomes in drawing the line. There is also the issue of heathcare information privacy.
ssue #1: who draws the line of what is too crazy to own/carry a firearm. Depending on the politics of the individual, that line could range from no one except police/military all the way to everyone including ex-cons and crazy people.
Issue #2: Where is the line drawn. Do you deny anyone who sought marital counseling or had a temporary bout of depression and was on meds for 6 months after a divorce/miscarriage? The person in this case sought voluntary in-patient treatment. Apparently the individual was sane enough to know they needed help, and I bet they are much better than the average person in denial.
Issue #3: Most important. Will tying applying for a permit/license actually cause people to avoid seeking mental health? As an example, what about that Iraq/Afghan war vet with PTSD? He is perfectly normal. A patriot in every sense. Of any citizen, they have earned the right to be able to defend themselves. However, they have a little trouble sleeping from the nightmares so they consider going to the VA to get some counseling or medication. Except they know they will lose their rights to have/carry firearms in doing so. So they ignore the warning signs and do not seek treatment. This is the perfect example of actually hurting someone who deserves help, needs help, but do to knee jerk responses that were not well thought out, we have set the conditions for a potential problem.
” Of any citizen, they have earned the right to be able to defend themselves”
Rights DO NOT have to be earned; they already exist, by virtue of being an American.
Yeah?.. Tell the interned Japanese How well that worked for them…. Go back to your tv tray and remote control.
You have as many rights as you are allowed to have..
Troll, working OT.
By virtue of being alive; American citizenship has nothing to do with it. The nation was founded upon the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn’t matter if the person is in downtown Boston, Beirut, or Baghdad.
Issue #1: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… problem solved. Government doesn’t have the privilege/authority to decide.
Issue #2: See Issue #1. The line was already drawn in the contract by which the People agreed to be governed; the Constitution. The government has been in breach for a long time. If the People wish to change that contract binding upon government, the only legitimate process is a constitutional amendment.
Issue #3: See Issue#1 and Issue #2
Of any citizen, they have earned the right to be able to defend themselves.
Rights are unalienable from birth. It’s one of the founding principles of this nation. You are commenting about the United States of America, right?
This, that and there.
😀
Yes, the problem is too many guns. There is no magic way to figure out who will loose it one day.
If guns are not available to them, they may live to seek help. If gun is easily put in their hands they will off themselves and anyone around them. We can’t put everybody in therapy. Prejudice, Road rage, angry about someone cutting in line, somebody looking at you funny or just because… are all reasons people will use to draw a firearm. No gun, no problem walk away and life goes on.
It’s “lose”, troll. And it’s not “looser”, it’s, well…. LOSER.
I too was denied a CCW. I am curious how you found out the reasoning and Dept behind the objection. I have been legally carrying for 2 years now with an IDFR firearms control card. Now I find out I am a threat to public safety. Applying for an appeal was a 5 hour nightmare. ISP will not offer reasoning told me to follow appeal process.
I was not told the reasons, those are only my guesses. I have called ISP and am waiting for a call back. Can you elaborate on your experiences?
lose,looser,loser whatever I’m sure people get the point.
SHAWN Read the code on that paper, does not make any sense. Never involved with gasoline charges in my life, if you figure out what you’r going to do let me know, you’r not the only one. my (arrests) were 20 years ago+
I must have missed the part where someone alluded to your criminal record. Can you quote it for us? Not your actual criminal record, mind you, but where someone actually knew about it, and commented on it?
Paranoid much? Or else you are creating cognitive dissonance.
Look it up.
I too was denied and I’m currently sitting in the the Daley center right now trying to start this appeals process. Has anyone else gone through with an appeal? Does anyone have any advice?
I have not read or heard of anyone who has actually done the appeal yet.
Illinois Carry has some resources, you should check them out if you can. See this thread, and this thread.
Another quick update: I just spoke with a person on the phone at the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk’s office. She told me I could get the Notice of Appeal and Record of Preparation from their website and that I could file them online.
I do not know if there are special circumstances regarding the CCL denial, but there are apparently the forms for a general purpose civil appeal.
I did the appeal today and they set my court review date for August 12th. This city is full of it. Why in the world would they set a date so far away? Meanwhile criminals still roam the streets with their weapons. The good news is I made them eat the fees because I was able to get a waiver.
Mind if I ask how you were able to get a waiver? That would make a big difference to me and probably a few other people. That’s like $400.
“Why in the world would they set a date so far away? ”
I’ll take this. To make you wait and wait and wait, and then deny your application.
Appeal. Rinse. Repeat.
It is NOT going to get better there for the foreseeable future; learn to live with the oppression, or MOVE.
Go to room CL-16 and speak with one of the free attorney’s and they’ll give you the form. Just say you have no income and they’ll send you to see a judge on the 24th floor. He’ll sign off on it and that’ll save you $400+
Julian, I’d love to communicate with you about your experience so far. If you’re interested, feel free to email me at Rutledge.Shawn at Google mail.
I emailed you yesterday morning Shawn.
They’re making sure you get good and domesticated, Shawn. They want you to be a neutered rooster.
DAMN!!!! A new band name every week!
I just received my initial denial letter letting me know the application denial is under board review. I have never been arrested, I have never been cuffed, I’ve never spent a single second behind bars or in a mental facility. I am a Veteran with a foid card and carry permits from 2 other states, and have held permits from states other than these. I’ll post here when the board decision is given in the next 30 days. It seems as if Cook County has decided it is going to cause problems for as many people as it can get away with, for as long as they can get away with it.
My brother’s application was objected to, and the board approved his. All is not lost (yet).
Comments are closed.