State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

This is a forum for posting current local and national news articles.

State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby newportri » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:33 pm

....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4694
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby Irishhunter » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:10 pm

And about time, too.
Irishhunter
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby YKCOR1313 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:51 pm

There are four cases not three. Part of the story says you need a proper showing of need and then it say you don't need to show need and then you need "any other proper reason" I thought the court said you didn't need to show need for a town permit. This is very confusing.
YKCOR1313
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby Blast54 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:17 pm

Why are their names published? Isn't it law that the information is not to be released?
Not just the names but the reasons they used on their applications...the town/city or court released the details of the applications?
Blast54
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby Irishhunter » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:03 pm

I imagine the reason the information is published like that is because it's part of a court proceeding. It would have been nice if the reasons provided could have been "For the purposes of protection of self and family." Period.
Irishhunter
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby RImike » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:34 pm

Blast54 wrote:Why are their names published? Isn't it law that the information is not to be released?
Not just the names but the reasons they used on their applications...the town/city or court released the details of the applications?

11-47-11b states current holders or those who held a CCW permit, not potential future holders.
RImike
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby Cyril » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:13 pm

Copypasta for posterity, since Projo will probably hide it behind a paywall after a few days...

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.

The law reads that a city or town's licensing authority "shall" issue a license when it appears that the applicant has a good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has "any other proper reason" to carry. A proper showing of need is not a component of the law, the court said.

In the court's recent ruling, issued on Oct. 25, the justices threw out Parella's denial of concealed permits to three residents and directed that new decisions be issued within 90 days that include the chief's reasoning.

"It's very frustrating that citizens have to hire a lawyer just to maintain compliance with the Supreme Court ruling," said David J. Strachman, who represents the three applicants. The law is not discretionary, as the city has argued, but mandatory if an applicant shows a proper reason to carry, he said.

Strachman criticized East Providence police in court papers for their "troubling history" of "flagrantly ignoring" the high court's mandate and refusal to comply with state law.

Strachman is referring to the court's 2015 ruling in the case of Norman Gadomski, a National Rifle Association instructor and gun collector who sought to carry a weapon for self-defense. The court found that the police chief, Joseph Tavares, had wrongly denied him a license by requiring that he show need. At the time, the city had not issued such a permit for 10 years.

Robert E. Craven Sr., assistant city solicitor, acknowledged this week that Parella appeared to be using the state law that governs the issuance of licenses by the attorney general. That law states that the state's chief law enforcer "may" issue a license upon a proper showing of need.

He said he had instructed Parella to state the reasons for any denial, which Craven would then review. "I do view it as a mandatory issue if there's any proper reason," Craven said. "It says what it says, and it has to be enforced."

Parella could not be reached for comment this week.

The three applicants now seeking licenses to carry are Jessica de la Cruz, a stay-at-home mother of three who collects rents; Fernando Brasil, an information-technology engineer who grew up handling guns; and Brian K. Turgeon, a 52-year-old man who wants to protect himself and his wife.

The mother of three children younger than 6, de la Cruz, 35, wrote in her application that she is a landlord who often collects rent money. "Standing my ground to defend myself and my children would be the only option to ensure their survival," she wrote.

Brasil, 34, told police that he had owned firearms since age 21 and that he wanted a license for self-defense.

"With the alarming rate of violent acts around the United States, it has become abundantly clear that my number one priority is to keep myself, my family, and my property safe from anyone seeking to do harm," Brasil wrote.

Turgeon wrote in his application about being threatened less than a mile from his home by a man who had been recently released from prison and was friends with a career criminal. Turgeon has bad knees and lower back problems. He fears that he won't be able to protect himself or his wife, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a cane.

Turgeon's high court appeal notes that Parella rejected five applications on the same day in January using "boilerplate" language.

David Eikeland, a gun enthusiast, said he had reviewed concealed weapons policies for every Rhode Island city and town through Freedom of Information requests.

"Unfortunately, we're still seeing a lot of people being wrongfully denied," he said. "It's very typical that licensing officials are using the wrong standard."

Eikeland said he was denied a license in his hometown of Newport, but that the attorney general's office ultimately granted him a license.

"You shouldn't have to be an NRA instructor or have a license from the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]" to get licensed, said Eikeland, who wants to carry for self-defense and has credentials through the NRA.

As of Dec. 31, there were 2,813 active pistol permits in Rhode Island issued by the attorney general.
User avatar
Cyril
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:00 am

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby Cyril » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:46 pm

YKCOR1313 wrote:There are four cases not three. Part of the story says you need a proper showing of need and then it say you don't need to show need and then you need "any other proper reason" I thought the court said you didn't need to show need for a town permit. This is very confusing.

Not that I would count on a major media outlet to have perfect technical reporting on this, but even taking the reporting at face value it's reasonably clear if you give attention to the details.

From the article:

[The court] 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.

The law reads that a city or town's licensing authority "shall" issue a license when it appears that the applicant has a good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has "any other proper reason" to carry.

A proper showing of need is not a component of the law, the court said.

The law is not discretionary, as the city has argued, but mandatory if an applicant shows a proper reason to carry, [David J. Strachman, who represents the three applicants] said.

The court found that the police chief, Joseph Tavares, had wrongly denied him a license by requiring that he show need.

That law states that the state's chief law enforcer "may" issue a license upon a proper showing of need.


To distill and add emphasis:

The Court said that requiring applicants to demonstrate a need is unacceptable;

Projo reports that the law says that the license shall be issued when it appears that the applicant has reason (nothing about requiring the applicant to show need);

The Court said that a proper showing of need is not a component of the law;

Projo reports that the attorney representing three applicants said the law is mandatory if an applicant shows a proper reason to carry (but Projo did not use quotation marks);

The Court said the Chief was wrong for requiring the applicant to show need;

Projo reports that law applying to the State AG is "may issue" upon showing of need.

So, it is reported three times that the Court said no showing of need is to be required.

None of the three opposing statements indicating the requirement to show need were from the Court; one is a Projo reporter's interpretation that the law indicates that it should "appear" that the applicant has need (how that could work, I can only imagine), one is probably a complete mis-reporting of what the applicants' lawyer said, and one is irrelevantly about the state AG instead of town police Chiefs.

Can anyone find this case on the RI Supreme Court website? I must be looking in the wrong place. https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/Suprem ... rders.aspx
User avatar
Cyril
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:00 am

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby RImike » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:57 pm

Newport posted it in the other thread, here is the .pdf to download: download/file.php?id=438
RImike
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: State Supreme Court admonishes EP chief for CCW permits

Postby n1bsbri » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:15 pm

The "appears" language is right from the statute 11-47-11.

...
if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver,
..
“What New England is, is a state of mind, a place where dry humor and perpetual disappointment blend to produce an ironic pessimism that folks from away find most perplexing”― Willem Lange
User avatar
n1bsbri
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:56 pm

Next

Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron