SB1552 amends the Illinois Police Training Act to limit the fee that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board may charge retired law enforcement officers for their annual certification to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. The bill sets a maximum annual charge of $30 for completing that certification.
The measure is narrow in scope and does not change who is eligible for retired officer certification or concealed-carry status; it only places a statutory cap on the administrative fee associated with the annual certification process. It applies to the Board’s rulemaking and fee-setting authority under Section 10 of the Act, effectively restricting the Board from imposing higher annual costs on retired officers who qualify under federal law.
Impact
If enacted, SB1552 would amend Section 10 of the Illinois Police Training Act, limiting the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board’s authority to charge more than $30 per year for retired law enforcement officer certification related to concealed carry. The practical effect would be to reduce or cap out-of-pocket certification costs for retired officers, while leaving the underlying certification requirement and the Board’s broader rulemaking authority intact.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be generally favorable to retired law enforcement officers and framed as a cost-limiting measure rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s apparent purpose and sponsor framing. The caption, “Retired Officer Training,” suggests a targeted administrative adjustment with a modest, pro-retiree orientation.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the fee cap itself: supporters would likely view it as protecting retired officers from excessive certification costs, while any opponents might argue that the Board should retain flexibility to set fees that fully cover administrative and training expenses. Because the bill does not include debate transcripts or vote history, there is no evidence of specific objections, but the likely policy tension is between affordability for retirees and agency cost recovery.