• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
#1
http://www.providencejournal.com/ne...ovidence-police-chief-for-denying-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.

. . .
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,280
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
#5
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:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
#6
Great news for sure, and another step in the Right direction for Rhode Island. :)

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. :)
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,351
Location
Valhalla
#7
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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,508
Location
nj
#8
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
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
#9
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?
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
#10
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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,508
Location
nj
#11
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..
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
#12
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?
 

Top