Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skokie man sues over denial of concealed carry permit
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 4/21/14 | Frank Main and Art Golab

Posted on 04/21/2014 9:13:55 PM PDT by smokingfrog

A 69-year-old Skokie man filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court claiming the state unconstitutionally denied him a permit to carry a concealed gun.

John Berron applied for a concealed carry permit on Jan. 5. He got a letter on March 19 that said that the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board received an objection to his application and found he was ineligible for a permit. The Illinois State Police denied his application on that date.

Berron wasn’t told why his permit was denied, said his attorney, J.D. Obenberger.

Court records show he was arrested in 2000 for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property, both misdemeanors. He was convicted and received court supervision.

In 2006, he was arrested once again for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property. He was convicted and received conditional discharge for resisting a police officer and was ordered to pay a $200 fine and more than $1,400 in restitution for the property damage, records show.

Berron claims the state violated his right to due process in denying his concealed carry application without allowing him to present his case to the licensing board. He’s asking the court to overturn his denial and give him a concealed carry permit.

“This isn’t a privilege, it’s a constitutional right,” Obenberger said.

Obenberger said the state began issuing concealed carry permits only after a federal appeals court ruled the constitution includes the right to carry handguns outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Obenberger called the rules surrounding Illinois’ issuing of concealed carry permits an illegal “smell test.”

“If the police chief doesn’t like you, he can object to you,” Obenberger said.

Berron is suing the state licensing board, the state police and the village of Skokie.

(Excerpt) Read more at politics.suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: banglist
Mmmm. Probably not the best guy to be arguing the case, but considering it's Skokie he may be one of their more upstanding citizens.
1 posted on 04/21/2014 9:13:55 PM PDT by smokingfrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Nothing but misdemeanors.

He's entitled under the Constitution.

2 posted on 04/21/2014 9:16:23 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

I notice the constitution does not say “the right to bear arms, if you have a clean police record, shall not be infringed”.


3 posted on 04/21/2014 9:16:55 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

He seems a little old to be having run-ins with the law.


4 posted on 04/21/2014 9:27:51 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

i’d rather see a guy with misdemeanors having a chance than violent felons.


5 posted on 04/21/2014 9:34:09 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

His crimes are misdemeanors and thus he is not a prohibited person. In his particular circuit jurisdiction, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and Ill has been ordered to issue them. He may be a marginal applicant, but this is shall-issue, not may-issue. If we give gov’t discretion, the right will become a privilege.


6 posted on 04/21/2014 9:35:53 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

If someone in my neighborhood had been arrested for these kinds of misdemeanors, I would be uncomfortable with that person bearing arms. This guy’s arrests do tell us something about his lack of self-control. Sorry, fellow.


7 posted on 04/21/2014 9:38:03 PM PDT by IIntense (WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

sounds like he was bickering with a neighbor or something... those charges sound bad but probably mostly harmless. Simply arguing with a cop gets you resisting charges, it’s their ace they keep up their sleeve for when you pi#$@ them off. the other one is disorderly conduct.


8 posted on 04/21/2014 9:41:23 PM PDT by FunkyZero (... I've got a Grand Piano to prop up my mortal remains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IIntense
So government suppressing other peoples rights is a good thing when it keeps YOU from being “uncomfortable”?
9 posted on 04/21/2014 9:45:09 PM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: umgud

In many cases, it doesn’t take much to get charged with “resisting”.


10 posted on 04/21/2014 9:46:48 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Screw this islamocommunist government. I stand by The Constitution.


11 posted on 04/21/2014 9:58:12 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

Don’t know the particulars of this case but we’ve seen some pretty brutal videos where innocent folks attempting to defend themselves from assault by cop and are charged with resisting.


12 posted on 04/21/2014 10:03:21 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux. If not now, when? If not here, where?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

Meanwhile, abortion, which is not in the constitution, would not be denied to any woman for any reason, and the slightest intrusion into this so-called “right” would be declared illegal.


13 posted on 04/21/2014 10:27:48 PM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

In the real world anyone can gather charges like this....

Just by being there.

I know a kid who got a bracelet on for a yr....for barking back at a police dog.....that was barking at him....for no reason...he was walking by.

I know another one who got 2 yrs susp..and a braclet when the wrong person saw him kick a junk dresser he bought from a garage sale for $3....

I know another kid who got 2k fine and anger management when the wrong person saw him throw his own phone on the ground.

I know another guy who got around 2 yr susp and anger manag...when the police found him...curled in a ball in his kitchen in a puddle of blood with lacerations on his arms and across the top of his head.....this happened -after- his wife had crashed the car in the driveway...then cut all their leather furnature up with a large knife...he yelled at her to stop....she had not a mark....he was charged assault....she got the house....she got the kids....he got a restrain order...”after 2 wks in hosp”.

I know a lot of guys....”funny one”guy I know comes home from work,,,has no clue of any problem at all.....walks in the door....wife of 3 yrs 2 kids ...no job....says”get out I dont want you here”.he says ok walks outside ....police are there....”help” him get in his car. goes motel....wife calls next day...”come and get your stuff”...walks to the door....strange guy opens the door....wearing his pajamas ....pointing his shotgun at him...says”heres some clothes”throws a suitcase out the door...

Another one...nice guy I worked 10 hrs a day w for 9 yrs...
never a loud voice...no swearing...comes home to restrn order.....complaint?..from 20 yr wife?..”when I was yelling at him he ....”smiled evil” at me”.....lol

Guess what.....Ann Rand was right.


14 posted on 04/21/2014 10:36:08 PM PDT by Therapsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Therapsid

Who’s Ann Rand?


15 posted on 04/21/2014 11:02:21 PM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

http://listverse.com/2007/12/13/top-25-ayn-rand-quotes/


16 posted on 04/21/2014 11:18:55 PM PDT by Therapsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

You forgot obstructing or hindering an investigation. That’s another charge used by police to punish anyone who they think isn’t being cooperative.


17 posted on 04/21/2014 11:50:33 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

If he’s too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, lock him up and provide protection for him.


18 posted on 04/22/2014 3:22:30 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Wagglebee please come home we miss you! ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Hey, it’s Illinois. Illinois, like odumbo and Holder make their own laws. Who gets a CCW permit is at their discretion and in their minds (small as they be) they have spoken, thus “no permit”.


19 posted on 04/22/2014 4:15:57 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

It gets worse. I have a friend who was denied because of someone elses crime. He has a fairly common name, evidently sharted by a criminal in another part of the state (Illinois). He’s trying to get that mess straightened out but it could take years.

It really should not be a problem, after all, he has a different S.S. number, different finger prints etc. but he’s having to deal with Illinois state government.


20 posted on 04/22/2014 4:48:32 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 1 Cor. 13:36)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Meanwhile, abortion, which is not in the constitution, would not be denied to any woman for any reason, and the slightest intrusion into this so-called “right” would be declared illegal.

I agree with your stance on abortion, i.e., it is a despicable thing and is something that should not be allowed, but what puzzles me is how it is germane to the current thread on gun rights. Please elucidate.

21 posted on 04/22/2014 5:24:09 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: umgud

His crimes are misdemeanors and thus he is not a prohibited person.


Oddly, this big-city crack reporting team fails to include this tidbit in their story.


22 posted on 04/22/2014 5:50:43 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Lose to Cruz - 2016!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Defiant
Both are Constitutional rights (although only the right to keep and bear arms is, you know, like actually in the Constitution).

If having committed a misdemeanor disqualifies someone from exercising a right specifically contained in the Constitution, shouldn't it also disqualify someone from exercising a penumbral right? After all, most folk exercising their right to keep and bear arms never cause the slightest injury to anyone else, while everyone exercising the right to abortion takes the life of another.

23 posted on 04/22/2014 6:02:16 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Nevertheless, it’s quite a stretch to bring that into the discussion at hand.


24 posted on 04/22/2014 6:24:55 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Defiant

I thought his analogy was apt.


25 posted on 04/22/2014 6:34:26 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky; OldPossum; Defiant

I got it. It didn’t seem like a stretch, or out of place. I thought it made perfect sense.


26 posted on 04/22/2014 7:03:55 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Wagglebee please come home we miss you! ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Defiant
I read Defiant's comment as contrasting liberals defending a "right" that never existed,

versus

continually assaulting a right that existed even before the Constitution specifically protected it.

27 posted on 04/22/2014 7:07:48 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; BykrBayb; Mr. Lucky; OldPossum
You first 3 get it. For OldPossum's edification, let me explain.

The court has held in numerous instances with various rights that any action that tends to infringe on that right cannot be taken, even if the right itself is not actually violated. For example, the 5th amendment right against self incrimination has been held to prohibit firing a government employee who exercises it because it punishes someone who exercises it, even though they are not actually compelled to testify against themselves. The First Amendment right of free speech, now under assault for political speech, has all kinds of previous cases saying that impositions by authorities on the exercise of speech (such as location, content, noise ordinances, time of day) must be examined with strict scrutiny to determine whether there are overriding concerns which can only be addressed by the law in question. Such laws must be carefully crafted to infringe on the right only to the extent needed to meet that concern.

Such strict scrutiny tests have been applied to the non-existent right to abortion. They have not been applied to the right to bear arms. Thus, you have laws that deny 2nd amendment rights to felons, and that restrict firearms in myriad ways unrelated to public safety or some overriding public concern. You would never take away rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6, 7th or 8th Amendments for the types of government interests claimed with respect to the 2nd amendment. For example, you would not take away the 5th amendment from DC because there are so many crimes there, they need to to protect the citizens. Yet that type of thinking goes on with the 2nd amendment.

Hope that helps.

28 posted on 04/22/2014 9:11:11 AM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

What if a neighbor had a traffic violation? The question is “where does it end”?


29 posted on 04/22/2014 9:13:20 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
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.

Why the hell do ANY of us "need" a permit? What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

30 posted on 04/22/2014 9:17:02 AM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
I read Defiant's comment as contrasting liberals defending a "right" that never existed, even before the Constitution specifically protected it.

I, OTOH, read Defiant's comment as using the thread as an excuse to get in his comments on abortion.

By now, I should have learned that it is never a good idea to get involved with people who seem to have abortion on their mind almost all the time.

31 posted on 04/22/2014 9:31:22 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Defiant

Oh, I was just commenting on what was actually posted. I hadn’t realized it was about a personal grudge you’re carrying.


32 posted on 04/22/2014 10:40:22 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Wagglebee please come home we miss you! ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I have no personal grudge against Defiant (this is the first “discussion” I have had with him), and there is no indication in my remarks about such a thing. I just thought that bringing in abortion on a gun rights thread was inappropriate. Over the years I have seen this a lot on FR, i.e., the introduction of remarks on abortion on threads that have no relationship to it. In this case, Defiant did justify to some extent the Constitutional legal basis relationship between abortion and guns, but note that his comment on abortion was the only one on the thread; no one else except the three of you who “amened” it joined in.

Again, I have learned my lesson: don’t tell anyone they have no business introducing abortion on threads unrelated to it. Those who are totally focused on abortion snap back, viciously.


33 posted on 04/22/2014 12:49:52 PM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Defiant; BykrBayb; Mr. Lucky
Do you walk in circles?

Or -- do you occasionally swap shoulders with that massive chip you're lugging?

34 posted on 04/22/2014 4:01:57 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

I’m just curious. What are you talking about?


35 posted on 04/22/2014 5:36:48 PM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
Have you lost your possum-lickin' mind? What are you talking about? Who has abortion on their mind almost all the time, and on what basis do you make that claim? Certainly not on my posting history. Maybe you are addled.

The purpose of my post was not to bring in abortion, but to contrast the treatment by liberals of the second amendment with their treatment of the non-existent right to abortion, as a comment on their hypocrisy with respect to the second amendment, which was the subject of this thread.

I have learned something about you today. You are a little bit off. I don't know why; I don't care. Next time you discuss someone you should be man enough to ping them to the post.

36 posted on 04/22/2014 6:18:36 PM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Do you walk in circles?

Yes. Yes he does. Like the rabid possums I have seen.

37 posted on 04/22/2014 6:19:48 PM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

I want to know what you think you are talking about. Out of curiosity, I just went through a page of my postings, and not a single one about abortion, except the one on this thread comparing and contrasting liberal views of constitutional rights. It would be nice if you could defend yourself by showing, with reference to specific posts, that I frequently mention abortion in threads that don’t have anything to do with abortion, but you can’t do that, now can you? So, I would appreciate it if you would quit shooting your mouth off about things you are wrong about.


38 posted on 04/22/2014 6:28:50 PM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

I do apologize for mistaking you for some Freepers who do indeed have abortion on their minds to the exclusion of almost anything else and interrupt threads with comments on this subject, and I mistook you for one of them.

I think I did acknowledge to another Freeper (on your side) that you had valid points in your analysis of abortion and gun rights. I also did not ping you correctly in some of my comments; I know better than that, just forgot.

And I finally must admit also that I must be a bit off to get into shouting matches with turds such as yourself who jump up and down when you feel you’ve been wronged. You had to make three consecutive posts in your anger at me. You, too, have a problem. I sure wouldn’t want to be your neighbor.

With that said, we shall part company. Good day.


39 posted on 04/22/2014 7:20:16 PM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

You were doing so well until the third paragraph. Just when I thought you were a good guy, you go with the name calling. Now it’s “turd”. What are you, third grade? I’m not the one who initiated an attack. I’m the one who was accused of having abortion on the brain. Not that I would take that as an insult. I think the owner of this web site has abortion on the brain. But it doesn’t result in me hijacking threads to say something unrelated about abortion. And it wasn’t true. What I don’t understand is, why do you have the visceral reaction to those who do feel an overriding need to mention their hatred of abortion? I think they are probably good people who can’t get the horror of it out of their heads.


40 posted on 04/22/2014 7:30:36 PM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson