Cook County Sheriff: "No conceivable way" CCW background checks can be accomplished in 30 days

[Robb]

Once anyone applies for a permit, law enforcement agencies would have 30 days to determine if the person is “a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety” and file an objection to the application.

“There’s no conceivable way that we can get to any of this, and this won’t be because of lack of desire,” Dart said. “How in God’s name, in the course of less than 30 days, can we go through 100-, 150-, 200,000 applications and analyze whether or not this is a person that has mental illness? Is this a person who is actively involved in a gang, even though they haven’t been arrested in the last five years?”

Dart said he thinks the short window for conducting background checks is by design, saying the National Rifle Association doesn’t want him determining who should be considered safe to carry a gun in public.

“We’re going to be overwhelmed with people asking for these type of permits, and yet we have no ability at all to do any type of analysis,” Dart said.

As a result, Dart warned that people who wouldn’t qualify under a more thoughtful process will be able to get concealed carry permits, because his office doesn’t have the resources to perform thorough background checks for every applicant.

Read More: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/10/dart-slams-30-day-deadline-for-concealed-carry-background-checks/?utm_medium=VPH&utm_source=topvph_news&utm_campaign=473464

[MicaelS]

1. Too bad, Dart.

If they can do it in other states, they can do it in Illinois. If the politicians and bureaucrats in Illinois hadn't fought this tooth and nail for years, then maybe a better compromise could have been reached. I'm sure Dart would like to take as long as necessary, probably a year or more, to be allowed to check someone out.

[Robb]

2. God forbid an effective background check be performed.

[MicaelS]

3. Once again..

If they can do it in other states in the allotted time by their legislatures, then what makes Illinois so damned special that they can't?

I'm sure if Dart and his cronies, (and I use that word pejoratively) had prepared for this like they should have, they would have a system in place ready to go, when the bill was passed into law. But, I imagine they kept hoping and praying that it would never pass, and dragging their feet in the process. So they didn't do the job that they were supposed to, which is preparing for an eventuality they did not like. Given the fact that the other 49 states passed CCW without the disasters of "rivers of blood in the streets" and "bodies stacked up like cord wood" predicted by the Gun Prohibitionists, they should have accepted the fact that Illinois, too, would have CCW, sooner or later, the only question was when. Now it has bit them square in the ass, and I feel no sympathy for bureaucrats caught with their pants down.

[Robb]

4. Then you don't actually support gun safety.

You're willing to accept a lack of background checks for CCW holders in exchange for teaching someone a lesson.

Spiteful and childish.

[MicaelS]

5. Illinois is the home of the famous FOID

(Firearm Owner's Identification Card), one of the most stringent in the nation. Aren't they supposed to be doing a background check when someone applies for a FOID?

From their own website:

The FOID card was created in 1968, by the FOID Act, as a way to identify those persons eligible to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition as part of a public safety initiative in the State of Illinois.

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearm or firearm ammunition within the State must have in their possession a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name.

The Department of State Police shall either approve or deny all applications within 30 days from the date the applications are received.

So if they are doing their jobs properly when a person applies for a FOID, there should not be a problem in extending it into a CCW permit.

"Let's see your FOID. OK, you're current, that saves time."

[Robb]

6. FOID is required by law to be approved *or* denied in 30 days.

The new CCW permit process requires law enforcement to provide documentation of a reason to deny within 30 days.

Can you now recognize the difference?

[MicaelS]

7. I recognize difference.

And I ask again, if they have a valid FOID, have they not undergone a background check?

Yes or No?

If they have passed the background check, then they have permission to posses a firearm. That means they are not a criminal. Then if they pass the class, they are to get their permit issued. I see no problem with that.

And the reason for documenting reason to deny, is to prevent people like Dart from denying people a CCW because they don't like the idea of people carrying, and then giving a phony reason that can't be documented.

[Robb]

8. You are arguing the default be to issue, regardless of the ability to perform BGC.

That is a completely insane argument; even the most strident of DU's NRA nincompoops don't go that far.

[MicaelS]

9. Wrong.

I am arguing that if they have an existing valid FOID, they have ALREADY passed the BGC. If they pass the class, then they get their CCW. Why should there be a reason to deny if they already have the FOID, and passed the class?

[Robb]

10. FOID is required every 10 years; CCW every 5.

[MicaelS]

11. OK, then change the law on the FOID.

They should have done that when they passed the CCW bill.

[Robb]

13. Why do you suppose they did not?

[kickysnana]

12. Ask the NSA. n/t

[jimmy the one]

14. harder line needed, imo

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

michaelS: If they can do it in other states in the allotted time by their legislatures, then what makes Illinois so damned special that they can't?
..I'm sure if Dart and his cronies, (and I use that word pejoratively) had prepared for this like they should have, they would have a system in place ready to go, when the bill was passed into law. But, I imagine they kept hoping and praying that it would never pass, and dragging their feet in the process.
.. Given the fact that the other 49 states passed CCW without the disasters of "rivers of blood in the streets" and "bodies stacked up like cord wood" predicted by the Gun Prohibitionists, they should have accepted the fact that Illinois, too, would have CCW, sooner or later, the only question was when. Now it has bit them square in the ass, and I feel no sympathy for bureaucrats caught with their pants down.

Do we really need daredevil michaelS running rampant in here? .. so typical, blaming others for the predicament rightwing republican policy enables. (edit: yes, at the root of shall issue is rightwing republican policy, enabled by gwbush - dems in illinois did not want shall issue to begin with, were forced into it).
I think it's clear he has no interest in subscribing to the group's etiquette & purpose. Take a bit harder line please. Thumbs down on michaelS. VETO.
He even has it a**backwards, it was the nra saying blood was running in the streets in australia after they enacted gunbans after port arthur gun massacre, prompting PM john howard & atty gen daryl williams to lodge complaint with heston & the nra.

[shedevil69taz]

15. I wonder

What happens when the agency that he is in charge of repeatedly cannot comply with the law and complete the checks within the alloted time period?