ISRA Thursday Bulletin + New CCW laws

dd

<br />
<br />
<br />
ISRA Thursday Bulletin - September 24, 2015 <br />
<br />

<br />
<br />
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE <br />
<br />
<br />
Some of you remember Dan, "I couldn't tell the story straight if I had to", Rather. The former CBS anchor has been calling for the media to attack the Second Amendment. I recall Danny-boy had a New York City concealed carry permit. The New York left wing elitists believe we are all equal - it's just that some are more equal than others. <br />
<br />
Last week the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down some of the provisions of the Washington DC gun laws. The Court struck down the requirements that each person bring their firearm to Metropolitan Police Department and the regulation that limited registration to one hand gun a month. There are still other provisions before the Court case (Wrenn v Washington DC). One of those is the part of the regulation that requires a "special need" or "good cause" before a purchase will be approved. The rest of the ruling is expected soon. <br />
<br />
Last Monday, September 21, 2015, comments were drafted regarding the Illinois State Police's rule changes in the concealed carry rules. The Illinois State Rifle Association has replied to these changes. Please see our reply below: <br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Rentschler, <br />
<br />
I am writing to object to the Proposed Amendments to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act Procedures within the Administrative Rules, published on August 7, 2015. In large part these Proposed Amendments are beyond the scope of the rulemaking authority of the Department of State Police, are unnecessarily burdensome, and in some cases redundant to current requirements elsewhere in the Act or Administrative Rules. Specific objections are identified below. <br />
<br />
Section 1231.10 Definitions <br />
<br />
1) "Hit the target" - the statute only requires that 70% of the rounds fired must hit the target. The statute does not limit the target in any manner. The Proposed Rules require that the hits must be within rings 7, 8, 9 or X to count as a hit. This requirement is an expansion of the statute and beyond the rulemaking authority of the Department. This language should be eliminated. <br />
<br />
2) "Substantially similar" adds language that allows the submission of a sworn statement from a licensed mental health professional verifying that the individual has not voluntarily admitted himself or herself into a mental health facility ........ The statute already requires non-residents to submit an affidavit that they meet the mental health standards to obtain a firearm under Illinois law. Unless there is an existing client-patient relationship it is unlikely any mental health professional would sign such an affidavit and even with such relationship this requirement may be prohibited by confidentiality laws. This language is unnecessary, redundant and should be eliminated. <br />
<br />
Section 1231.20 Instructor Approval <br />
<br />
1) The Proposed Rules add new language requiring Instructors to review all informational bulletins within 2 months after being posted on a database for Instructors maintained by the Department. Furthermore, in the next Section of the Proposed Rules, the Department may revoke the Instructor's approval for failure to review the bulletins. These proposed changes are ludicrous at best, and unenforceable. This proposed language puts the burden on Instructors to peruse the Department database almost daily to determine whether any bulletins have been posted. If the Department wants to insure that Instructors review necessary bulletins then the Department should either regularly schedule the posting of bulletins and provide that schedule to Instructors, or contact Instructors via email that bulletins have been posted and should be reviewed. How does the Department plan to enforce this section? If this is to be grounds for revocation of approval as an Instructor there should be some identification as to how this will be enforced. How will Instructors prove they have reviewed the bulletins? As it is written is seems that this is a game of "gotcha" on the part of the Department. Department resources can surely be spent more productively. This language should either be removed completely or changed to require the Department to notify Instructors of bulletins. <br />
<br />
Section 1231.30 Instructor Suspension and Approval Revocation <br />
<br />
1) The Proposed Rules add language to suspend an Instructor's approval upon opening and investigation and determining reasonable suspicion exists the Instructor isn't in compliance with the Act or Rules. This is a gross violation of due process rights. This language should be eliminated. <br />
<br />
2) This section allows for an Instructor's approval to be suspended for failure to review informational bulletins posted by the Department. See comments under Instructor Approval. This language should be eliminated. <br />
<br />
3) Remove language in this section referring to live fire hits within the 7,8,9 or X rings as <br />
previously discussed. <br />
<br />
Section 1231.40 Curriculum <br />
<br />
1) The Proposed Rules mandate that Instructors use a standardized curriculum developed by the Department. This mandate is beyond the scope of the Department's rulemaking authority. The Act clearly states that the Department shall begin approval of firearm training courses. It does not provide for the Department to develop such courses or curriculum. This language should be eliminated or changed to allow the Department developed curriculum to be optional. <br />
<br />
2) Language is included for the Department to create a train-the-trainer program for their curriculum. A train-the-trainer program seems to be an unnecessary expense for the Department. A voluntary curriculum can be created for on-line learning. Eliminate this language. <br />
<br />
3) Language is added to restrict the number of students during live fire training to 6 students per Instructor. This language should be amended to allow range safety personnel in addition to the Instructor supervising 6 students. <br />
<br />
Section 1231.50 Training Certification <br />
<br />
1) Language is added to require Instructors to notify the Department 72 hours in advance of conducting a training course of the dates, times, and locations of the training session. This language is unnecessary and is simply an extra hurdle Instructors are asked to go through. What is the point of the Department collecting this information? Eliminate this language. <br />
<br />
2) The new language beginning with "g) Submission of Training Records" through "i)" should be eliminated. This entire Section is in violation of the Act and outside of the scope of the Department's rulemaking authority. <br />
* The statute requires the applicant to submit prior training certificates, NOT the Instructor. <br />
*There is no reason to require an applicant to submit their military ID card within 72 hours of training. This information is only necessary if the person chooses to apply for a CCL and can be submitted at that time. <br />
*Since the statute requires the applicant NOT the Instructor to submit training records it is inappropriate to declare an application incomplete if the Instructor fails to submit information that he is not mandated by law to submit. <br />
*There is no provision in the statute for a training certificate to expire. <br />
<br />
<br />
Section 1231.110 Nonresident Application <br />
<br />
1) See comments under "substantially similar" in Definitions. The statute already requires the nonresident applicant to submit an affidavit that they are in compliance with the Illinois mental health standards. The statute does not require an affidavit signed by a mental health professional. Eliminate this language. <br />
<br />
Thank you for consideration of these comments. I look forward to working with you on these rules. <br />
<br />
Sincerely, <br />
<br />
<br />
Richard Pearson, Executive Director <br />
Illinois State Rifle Association <br />
<br />
Cc: Vicki Thomas, Executive Director <br />
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules <br />
<br />
Some of you may have noticed there is no reference to the 10 ring. That is because there was no reference to this in the ISP proposed rules. <br />
<br />
Coming up at the Range: <br />
October 1-4, 2015 - MAG-40, Instructor Massad Ayoob <br />
There is still space available. Information on this class is listed on our website calendar (ISRA members receive a 10% discount). <br />
<br />
October 3, 2015 - WOT Shotgun Clinic <br />
There are a few openings left. Email lori@isra.org for details. <br />
<br />
Thanks for being an ISRA member. <br />
<br />
If you are not an ISRA member and this is being forwarded to you, join today. <br />
<br />
Check out ISRA's new modern website at www.isra.org! Tell us what you think! <br />
<br />
Follow the ISRA on Twitter and Facebook. <br />
Give the gift of an ISRA membership. Not an ISRA Member? Join Today! <br />
<br />

Snidely Whiplash

'dd' wrote:

<br />
<br />
ISRA Thursday Bulletin - September 24, 2015 <br />
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE <br />
<br />
Last week the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down some of the provisions of the Washington DC gun laws. The Court struck down the requirements that each person bring their firearm to Metropolitan Police Department and the regulation that limited registration to one hand gun a month. There are still other provisions before the Court case (Wrenn v Washington DC). One of those is the part of the regulation that requires a "special need" or "good cause" before a purchase will be approved. The rest of the ruling is expected soon. <br />
<br />
Last Monday, September 21, 2015, comments were drafted regarding the Illinois State Police's rule changes in the concealed carry rules. The Illinois State Rifle Association has replied to these changes. Please see our reply below: <br />
<...><br />
Section 1231.110 Nonresident Application <br />

<br />
<br />
The ISRA missed some language under the Nonresident Application section, so I sent this in to the ISP via their survey page: http://www.isp.state...s/SurveySite/ <br />
<br />
I'm a victim of the ISP discriminating against the non-residents of 45 states who are denied Illinois non-resident concealed carry permits EVEN IF THEY HAVE TAKEN THE ILLINOIS APPROVED CONCEALED CARRY TRAINING AND CAN PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK solely because the ISP does not approve of their home state's concealed carry permit laws.<br />
<br />
This irrelevant arbitrary interpretation of Illinois state law only serves to endanger and inconvenience law-abiding non-residents. In light of the fact that the State of Illinois is currently stealing lottery winnings from their residents for cash, the ISP should be directed to start issuing non-resident concealed carry permits to qualifying applicants from the 45 states they are currently denying permits to. Illinois can use the permit fees (double the resident fee) and the extra permit-holders will help keep Illinois residents safer when the state starts cutting ISP positions due to a lack of funding. <br />
<br />
Snidely Whiplash