Posted on 05/21/2015 6:04:35 AM PDT by marktwain
Rhode Island is generally thought of as a "shall issue" concealed carry state. That perception has been reinforced by a ruling of the Rhode Island Supreme Court from April 24, 2015. From providencejournal.com:
In early 2012, Norman T. Gadomski Jr. applied to Joseph H. Tavares, then the chief of the East Providence Police Department, for a permit to carry a concealed handgun as provided under Rhode Island General Law 11-41-11. This law says a municipalitys issuing authority shall issue a permit if specified requirements are met.
It is well known among members of the gun-owning community that certain chiefs of police will not issue a concealed-carry permit. Some, in fact, will not even accept an application for one. This goes back to an advisory letter sent to all police chiefs by former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.
In some towns, applicants are told to apply to the attorney general, who may issue under a different statute. The AG typically requires verification by the chief of police in the town in which the applicant resides, thus effectively limiting that avenue.
The Supreme Court ordered the present police chief in East Providence to review Gadomskis application and grant or deny the permit within 90 days, and -- this is the important part -- set forth the findings and conclusions on which the decision is based.
While this opinion may seem to be narrow, the court cites an earlier case (Genreau v. Canario) and makes it clear that the necessary findings to support [the denial of a permit] must be made, and [t]hose findings must, of course, be factual rather than conclusional." In other words, a brief letter stating that an issuing authority (including the AG) finds an applicant unsuitable will no longer suffice. He or she must show cause as to why an application is being denied.This decision is a further nail in the coffin of "may issue" state laws. It is only the eight holdout states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, California and Hawaii that cling to these antiquated laws. Two of those states, Connecticut and Delaware are said to be effectively "shall issue". Two others, California and Hawaii face their may issue laws being overturned by the Peruta decision, now under review in the Ninth circuit. Even the District of Columbia has had a federal judge rule that their law must be "shall issue". It is hard to see how the remaining states continue to ignore the word "bear" in the second amendment, but they do, and attempt to do so with a straight face.
I see two things happening; We are having many court victories, some landmark. Vast numbers no longer believe the decades old lies trotted out continually every time a gun debate comes up.
Not holding my breath, though.
I think only New Jersey and Hawaii are more restrictive than Maryland.
Even New York, Massachusetts and California are less restrictive, I undersand.
Kalifornia is made up of red counties and blue counties. It is effectively shall-issue in many of the red counties and virtually no-issue in many of the blue counties.
The chief law-enforcement officer in cities and counties have the discretion to decide what constitutes "good cause" to issue a permit.
It will be interesting, though disheartening, I think, to hear what the Ninth Circuit Court comes up with as a reason to overturn the favorable Peruta decision.
It may come as a surprise to those in Arizona, which is covered by the Ninth Circuit, that the Court may rule that they have no right to bear arms in public which they are now doing, openly or concealed, with or without a permit.
To progressives “Shall not be infringed” translates as
“Shall be limited to the maximum extent that we can get away with”.
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.