Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Rhode Island Supreme Court to police - "need" not required for gun permits

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,709

    Rhode Island Supreme Court to police - "need" not required for gun permits

    http://www.providencejournal.com/new...ng-gun-permits

    SNIP

    EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. — For the second time in just over a year, the state Supreme Court has rebuked the East Providence police for improperly denying residents licenses to carry concealed weapons.

    The high court recently issued an order faulting Chief Christopher J. Parella for failing to abide by the court's previous directive.

    The court in April 2015 ordered the city to back up any denial of a license to carry a concealed weapon with findings of fact. It also said at that time that the city was incorrectly applying the law by requiring that applicants demonstrate a "a proper and true need" to carry.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,950
    Great!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    895
    Ooh, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has so far admonished AND rebuked that police chief. Can chastising be far behind now?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,002
    Possibly even a thumbing of the nose.

    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    That's good news from the Rhode Island Supreme Ct.

    I've long had a special historical liking for Rhode Island.

    After the constitutional convention sent the constitution to the individual countries for ratification, there was quite an argument. The constitution was by no means generally accepted or praised. There was tons of criticism and opposition. Getting the constitution ratified was a real struggle.

    The upper crust who supported the constitution called themselves Federalists*. They arranged for the constitution to be ratified at the state level by the state legislatures or ratification committees established by the legislatures. Of course, that gave the Federalists the opportunity to stack the committees.

    Exactly and only one state submitted the constitution for a vote to the actual people who would be ruled by it--Rhode Island. Rhode Islanders foresaw the powerful, overbearing central government being established and voted down the constitution by ten or eleven to one.

    Gotta admire the foresight and self-reliance.

    Rhode Island only entered the union after being brow-beaten economically by the federal government during Geo. Washington's administration.



    *The self-described term Federalist was a sneaky marketing tactic. There already was a federation--the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. At that time, federation (alliance of independent states) and confederation meant the same thing. The Federalists clothed themselves in the name of something they were destroying in order to promote something else--a powerful central government. Of course, they carefully avoided the word powerful. They used the word vigorous. (see the Federalist Papers).
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-05-2016 at 02:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,548
    Great news for sure, and another step in the Right direction for Rhode Island.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    That's good news from the Rhode Island Supreme Ct.

    I've long had a special historical liking for Rhode Island.

    After the constitutional convention sent the constitution to the individual countries for ratification, there was quite an argument. The constitution was by no means generally accepted or praised. There was tons of criticism and opposition. Getting the constitution ratified was a real struggle.

    The upper crust who supported the constitution called themselves Federalists*. They arranged for the constitution to be ratified at the state level by the state legislatures or ratification committees established by the legislatures. Of course, that gave the Federalists the opportunity to stack the committees.

    Exactly and only state submitted the constitution for a vote to the actual people who would be ruled by it--Rhode Island. Rhode Islanders foresaw the powerful, overbearing central government being established and voted down the constitution by ten or eleven to one.

    Gotta admire the foresight and self-reliance.

    Rhode Island only entered the union after being brow-beaten economically by the federal government during Geo. Washington's administration.



    *The self-described term Federalist was a sneaky marketing tactic. There already was a federation--the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. At that time, federation (alliance of independent states) and confederation meant the same thing. The Federalists clothed themselves in the name of something they were destroying in order to promote something else--a powerful central government. Of course, they carefully avoided the word powerful. They used the word vigorous. (see the Federalist Papers).
    Thanks for the history lesson. Did not know Rhode Island held such a distinguished history.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    35,351
    The fat lady hasn't sung her song yet, but her presence is being felt with great anticipation.

    May issue to shall issue is a distinctive improvement.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,508
    I often wonder why some fat chief should be given so much power in the first place..

    A permission slip and approval by a LEO should not be needed to "keep and bear arms"..

    If the chief is not issuing permits/licenses to qualified law abiding citizens than he is in theory violating their rights and should be held accountable civilly under a 1983 suit and criminally under title 18 sections 241 and 242

    My .02

    regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  9. #9
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,480
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    I often wonder why some fat chief should be given so much power in the first place..

    A permission slip and approval by a LEO should not be needed to "keep and bear arms"..

    If the chief is not issuing permits/licenses to qualified law abiding citizens than he is in theory violating their rights and should be held accountable civilly under a 1983 suit and criminally under title 18 sections 241 and 242

    My .02

    regards
    CCJ
    So.... what are YOU doing in New Jersey to combat the theory that local officials are violating your rights? Are you holding them accountable civilly? Have you filed a 1983 suit? Are you asking that they be charged criminally under title 18.241 and 242?
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  10. #10
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    942
    OK; after the first Supreme Court decision the Chef der Deutschen Polizei continued to deny CCW applications. I wonder what chance a 42 USC 1983 suit against the Chef der Deutschen Polizei personally would have, either by an individual or as a class action by all those denied? If the Chef der Deutschen Polizei doesn't take the S.C. seriously he may think twice about having to pay his attorney fees and possible judgement out of his own pocket.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,508
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    So.... what are YOU doing in New Jersey to combat the theory that local officials are violating your rights? Are you holding them accountable civilly? Have you filed a 1983 suit? Are you asking that they be charged criminally under title 18.241 and 242?
    My rights have not been violated here in NJ or elsewhere. If my rights ever are violated, I have the legal capacity to bring suit and file appropriate charges..
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  12. #12
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,480
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    My rights have not been violated here in NJ or elsewhere. If my rights ever are violated, I have the legal capacity to bring suit and file appropriate charges..
    Really? You said that no one should have to obtain a permission slip to keep and bear arms. You live in New Jersey, according to your profile. New Jersey handgun law:

    Admin Code
    § 13:54
    -
    2.3
    Criteria for the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun
    (a)
    No application for a permit to carry a handgun
    shall be approved by a chief police officer of a
    municipality, the Superintendent or the Superior Court, unless the applicant:
    1.
    Is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her
    from obtaining a
    permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card as provided in this
    chapter;
    2.
    Has demonstrated that at the time of the application for the permit he or she is thoroughly familiar with the
    safe handling and use of handguns; and
    3.
    Has demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun.
    Amended by R.2007 d.378, effective December 17, 2007.
    Admin Code
    § 13:54
    -
    2.4
    Application for a permit to carry a handgun
    (a)
    Every person applying for a permit to carry a handgun shall furnish such information and particulars as
    set forth in the application form designated SP 642. The application shall be signed by the applicant under
    oath and shall be endorsed by three re
    putable persons who have known the applicant for at least three years
    preceding the date of application, and who shall also certify thereon that the applicant is a person of good
    moral character and behavior. Applications can be obtained at police departme
    nts and State Police stations.

    And yet you say your rights have not been abridged?
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •