Valinda Rowe, the Illinois Carry spokesman, met with the Illinois State Police a couple of weeks ago, along with Richard Pearson from the Illinois State Rifle Association. Mrs. Rowe’s first impressions of the meeting were very positive.
In fact, from her post at Illinois Carry, you would have thought she had the tiger by the tail.
Mr. B and I had a very productive meeting with some of the members of JCAR and ISP today. Mr. Pearson of the ISRA joined us. We want to thank Sen. Righter for helping put the meeting together. We had the opportunity to meet the new ISP Chief Legal Counsel Matthew R. Rentschler, who replaced Suzanne Bond – hooray! We went through our concerns line by line. There is a real possibility that most of our concerns with the new proposals are going to be addressed. We will know more after Mr. Rentschler and their Liaison for Governmental Affairs report back to the director.
They are in a tough spot with the non-resident issue/statutory requirements put on the ISP. At this point we don’t expect that issue to be resolved through rules.
We are very encouraged after meeting Mr. Rentschler. Looks like with the change in administration, it is going to be easier to work with the ISP.
The Illinois State Police aren’t quite the cuddly little kittens Valinda Rowe thought they were.
That’s what happens when the NRA and its lawyers weren’t in the room, along with the key people in the decision and rule-making process.
That’s okay. Working the back channels doesn’t always get the results we would like, so it’s time to be a little more direct about it.
Action Item: Contact the chief legal counsel at ISP at the address below. Be nice, but be firm in what you want and why you want it.
Illinois: State Police Will Not Remove Anti-Gun Rules, Your Comments Needed
Contrary to reports from other sources, NRA has met with Illinois State Police (ISP) regarding the proposed new concealed carry rules available here.
ISP will NOT be pulling the proposed rules after concerns were raised by NRA and other Second Amendment supporters about the contents of the new rules. It is critical that NRA members submit comments on these rules to ISP by Sept 18 to ensure that ISP is aware of the numerous problems so that amendments to the rules can be made.
Some of the concerns NRA has with the rules are as follows:
- The requirements for non-resident permits create an impossible standard, disarming any non-illinois resident visiting the state;
Pre-registration for training classes limits flexibility of both instructors and trainees;- Instructors will be required to engage in burdensome duplications of effort by submitting the same training certificates submitted by applicants;
- Signage making specific locations prohibited must be “conspicuously posted” but this term is not defined;
These concerns are not the whole of the problems with the proposed rules. NRA members are encouraged to read the proposed rule changes and submit comments on them in writing to:
Matthew R. Rentschler
Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois State Police
801 South 7th Street, Suite 1000-S
Springfield, IL 62703
Some issues we picked up right away included:
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes of what’s proposed:
1. (Page 4). B-27 scoring. The requirement to use a B-27 target stands, but they are re-defining (once more) what is a qualifying hit. Shots to the 7, 8, 9 and X-ring shall count as hits. The non-shooter who drafted these proposed changes was clearly out of his or her element. They apparently didn’t realize that they are excluding hits to the 10-ring that fall outside of the “X-ring”. We think this change should be easy to accomplish.
2. (Page 5). Redefines “substantially similar” to allow residents of almost all other states to apply for and received an Illinois CCW license. The catch? They must get a letter from a mental health professional attesting that the applicant hasn’t voluntarily admitted themselves to in-patient mental health treatment. Oh yes, there’s another catch: Applicants (and subsequent license holders) must submit these letters on an annual basis.
3. (Page 8 & 9). Instructor obligations and suspension/revocation procedure. Instructors must read instructor notices at least every sixty days. Creates a the process for suspending and/or revoking instructor credentials for misdeeds.
4. (Page 11). Curriculum. The State of Illinois will create an official curriculum that all instructors must follow. The program shall be released by January 1, 2016 for instructors to review. The State of Illinois will also create a “train the trainer” curriculum as well by the same date.
5. (Page 11). Student-teacher ratio for live fire. Each instructor may only train six shooters at a time during live fire segments.
6. (Page 13). Using the new curriculum & online reporting. By March 1, 2016, approved instructors may only use the State of Illinois curriculum and must register their courses at least 72-hours ahead of time. Instructors must also submit student rosters within 72-hours of completion of a class. Supporting documentation must be uploaded by the instructors as well for students wanting credit for previous training, etc.
7. (Page 15). Training certificates expire after one year from date of issuance.
I like reading between the lines. I have a few questions.
Just curious: why wasn’t NRA at that earlier meeting? If a minor, message board group like Illinois Carry was there with ISRA, then where was GSL? But the elephant in the room is “Why wasn’t the NRA there?”
My analysis says that woman’s meeting was neither relevant or productive.
Frankly I thought ISRA had more clout than this too!
I hope this all gets worked out!
I’ll be drafting a letter soon. For what it is worth.
I.A.:
Don’t read *too* much between the lines.
Why wasn’t the NRA at the meeting? Well, I’ll let Todd answer that. I will say that day, he told me he was at home drilling holes in golf balls for an upcoming shooting match. And he knew about the meeting.
Why wasn’t GSL at the meeting? Because we weren’t invited.
We go where we are needed or where it’s important when it comes to politics in Springfield.
Frankly, there is zero daylight between the NRA-ILA’s man (Todd Vandermyde) and myself. We might as well as be “one”.
I simply have him to stand in for us in many of these negotiations and discussions. He’s almost always talked with me ahead of time and knows our concerns, which almost inevitably mirror his own. We have the same philosophies (don’t coddle or cuddle up with enemies, take care of friends, and be aggressive enough, soon enough, where necessary… oh yeah, and to be pragmatic) and ideals for long-term goals and strategies.
What’s better is that sometimes he picks up on subtle things we might have overlooked or is thinking even longer-term and more in depth cause & effect than we are.
But then again, he’s a professional and has cultivated going on three decades of contacts, favors and relationships.
Why would we need to be there most of the time when Todd – a GSL member I might add – can be there and do an even better job for Illinois gun owners? What’s more, it seems like a duplication of effort and letting Todd handle things frees me up to do other educational and activist efforts on behalf of GSL. Furthermore, I’d never think of freelancing behind Todd’s back to muck things up that I don’t even know about.
The ISRA has clout. Not anything like the NRA-ILA, but they have clout.
Illinois Carry does a fine job as a message forum. That’s what they do well. IllinoisCarry.com for those who are interested in that sort of thing.
We’ve deliberated at least twice in the last couple of years about starting a GSL gun owners forum. Each time I’ve counseled against it, saying Illinois Carry does the forum thing pretty well and leave them to it. If at some point down the road we feel they don’t represent the best interests of gun owners in Illinois, or we have volunteers who feel they can implement a forum better, then we’ll revisit creating a GSL forum.
Hope this helps.
Yes, please draft your own comments to this guy at ISP. Every one helps and it may be as simple as the ISP wants formal suggestions to be offered in the rule-making process to adopt some modest (and positive for us) changes. Remember, the other side will probably have a dozen letters or so. It’s up to us to make sure we’ve got hundreds.
John
Sniff. Sniff.
I smell some smoke. Or is it jealousy?
Is this in any way related to what happened at IGOLD this year? About the scuffles between the guy from Illinois Carry and the ladies with the GSL banner?
BTW, I’m still waiting to hear what happened there.
Whatever’s going on, keep on the high road guys. You’re doing great stuff. It’s getting noticed in more places than you imagine.
Sam
Thanks John.
I am not in favor of doing anything to make getting licensed any more difficult than it already is.
I am new to Illinois and learning how this State’s leaders have an irrational, illogical disdain for guns, gun owners and gun rights.
I for one am glad the NRA and others are keeping their eye on them.
Go get ’em.
I was assuming Gov Rauner was a friend and that positive changes would be made to produce better behavior at the ISP.
This episode makes me wonder if that is happening.
I suppose that compared to what Quinn might have proposed, these are “positive” changes.
Not nearly the sort of positive we’d all like to see however.
John
It seems as though any non-Illinois-resident that has a carry permit-license in his/her home state has already been “vetted”, has firearms legally, been “run through” the FBI “backround checks” during purchaseing owned firearms, where does Illinois ISP elite think they are not capable to carry in Illinois? It is a “micro managing” nanny thing. The politicians and ISP elite are the ones that need the mental evaluation annually to remain in office reporting all evaluations to the taxpaying residents.
Bruce Rauner can be voted out of office. He knows the people of Illinois didn’t vote him in to just balance the budget.
Bruce isn’t the big problem.
The big problem in IL is the life-time of service from Madigan and Cullerton.
The Illinois Democratic machine has them locked in until they die or are imprisoned.
John
Shouldn’t you have put “service” in quotes?
Any word from Valinda?
What amazes me is how nobody seems to follow the real laws in this country not the “colored laws” that the government wants everyone to follow. Civil disobedience is something almost required today. Laches is incurring because we are all accepting that the state can limit our right to keep and bear arms. In the Constitution the second amendment reads as follows: 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. In Marbury vs Madison it stated that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no law made by congress can stand if it comes in conflict with the constitution. You will notice there is no subsection stating an acceptable INFRINGEMENT.
In Murdoch vs. Penn. 319 US 105:(1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262:(1962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
I realize that if caught carrying without a license you would be jailed but above sure seems to me like the proper defense for such a situation