2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Announcements about upcoming legislation in RI and nationally.

2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby newportri » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:22 am

This is a big bill that would be mostly good for us. It makes many of the AG's policies law, but it also makes him Shall Issue...
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/SenateText15/S0662.pdf
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby Thib » Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:13 pm

The attorney general shall issue a license or permit 13 to any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over to carry a pistol or revolver, whether 14 concealed or not, upon his or her person upon a proper showing of need


Doesn't this seem like a way to say "we no longer need 11-47-11 because the AG is now shall issue."? Yet, in my mind, the inclusion of "upon proper showing of need" still gives a easy out for denial... I don't know, knowing this state, it all seems real fishy to me.
Thib
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:42 pm

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby RImike » Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:00 pm

(4) Applicant's occupation, job description, years of employment and employer's full
27 address and contact information, including, but not limited to, the name of the applicants direct
28 supervisor and contact phone number.

I fail to see how employment has anything to do with being issued a permit, other than it encourages discrimination against those not employed and being a suitable person.....

Code: Select all
(12) Information relating to the applicant's current and prior applications for a permit for
15 a concealed weapon from the Rhode Island attorney general, any local city or town, or any other
16 state, including, but not limited to, if any permit is active, expired, denied or revoked, with the
17 dates and reasons thereof. The attorney general may require notarized photocopies of the front
18 and back of all valid permits

Can't notarize a copy of a signature, which all permits have...


(18) Three (3) dated, signed and notarized typed reference letters from individuals who
5 personally know the applicant. The individuals used as references must include on the letters the
6 following information: their full names, residence address, phone number with area code and the
7 years they have known the applicant. An applicant's reference letter dated more than three (3)
8 months prior to the date of the permit application will be considered invalid. Reference letters
9 must be written by the reference, not the applicant and cannot be identical

More hoops to jump through.


(1) If the application is approved, the attorney general may indicate on the reverse of the
2 license any restriction, if any, on the license. A permit issued without any restrictive language is
3 deemed to be unrestricted

Sooo it allows for a restricted permit...


I concur, this is definitely fishy. It also seems like an arbitrary amount of hurdles to obtain it. I wonder how well it would hold water in court?
RImike
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby newportri » Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:01 pm

I saw part of this bill in its draft format. It was the part that basically made the current policies law, and the bill was really in my opinion. This bill added an important part which is to make the AG Shall Issue, but I am sure the AG will fight this with tooth and nails.
I also have a lot of concerns with parts of the bill, so I am torn with whether I should support or oppose it (it's sponsored by pro gun legislators)... There are definitely some things that should be fixed with this bill (I do not want restrictions!). For example, they cannot legally request the SS# the way it is worded now since this is a government entity. They will at least have to say what it will be used for and what the consequence will be for not providing it.
The bottom line is that as long as we have 11-47-11, we are not really gaining anything, at least not on paper, by passing this bill.
Even if the bill passed in the current form and it has the text "upon proper showing of need" there is no definition of what this is and it would most likely be the courts that will have to decide what is a "proper showing of need". After the RI Supreme Court denied my petition for cert I don't have as much faith in the court system as I used to have :(
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby newportri » Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:06 pm

I also find it strange that the initial permit is "Shall Issue", but the renewal is "May Issue"..
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby RImike » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:41 pm

newportri wrote:The bottom line is that as long as we have 11-47-11, we are not really gaining anything, at least not on paper, by passing this bill.

While we might not gain anything with this bill, there the opportunity to loose more opens up as now there will be no need for 11-47-11, so what is preventing a future bill to eliminate it from happening?

I can't support this bill, considering the hoops one has to jump through. 11-47-11 works the way it is. It's the select few towns that have been problematic.
RImike
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby newportri » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:00 pm

11-47-11 works the way it is. It's the select few towns that have been problematic.

That depends on where you live since there are still a few towns where it is difficult or almost impossible to get a permit. If more people started applying instead of being intimidated by the process I think we would be better off.
However, as long as we have 39 different licensing authorities under 11-47-11 there will most likely be issues somewhere. It would be much better if there was a single licensing authority (and only one agency to sue!), but the process should be similar to 11-47-11 and not 11-47-18 or the proposed bill.
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby RImike » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:03 pm

newportri wrote:
11-47-11 works the way it is. It's the select few towns that have been problematic.

That depends on where you live since there are still a few towns where it is difficult or almost impossible to get a permit. If more people started applying instead of being intimidated by the process I think we would be better off.
However, as long as we have 39 different licensing authorities under 11-47-11 there will most likely be issues somewhere. It would be much better if there was a single licensing authority (and only one agency to sue!), but the process should be similar to 11-47-11 and not 11-47-18 or the proposed bill.

I suppose, but don't MA and CT have local licensing authorities as well?
RImike
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby newportri » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:08 pm

I believe CT is one central licensing authority at least for non-residents. I am not sure how it works for residents. However, they are May Issue, but they still issue to pretty much anyone who meets the requirements.
MA has local licensing authority for residents. Some of them issue and some of them don't. They are May Issue so there isn't much you can do if you are denied and I don't think the Comm2A has been very successful in suing over a denial.
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: 2015: S662 - Will make the AG Shall Issue!

Postby mossberg500 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:01 pm

Adding restrictions to the mix is a BIG sticking point for me. And, FWIW, if restrictions are brought into the mix,they need to find what they are in the law.

The biggest issue is the proper showing of need. As long as that term is in there, and not specifically defined, this legislation is essentially useless. They can call it shall issue, must issue, ..... whenever you want, it's on lipstick on a pig, as long as that terminology is in there and not defined.

I can go so far as to say I'm against this bill, unless some major changes are made.
mossberg500
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:36 pm

Next

Return to Current Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron