R.I. Supreme Court sides with applicant for concealed weapon permit

[Midwest]

R.I. Supreme Court sides with applicant for concealed weapon permit

Reading into this article, and other articles regarding this story. It appears that "Shall Issue" in Rhode Island is closer to reality. Other articles say this State Supreme Court ruling affirms that Rhode Island is in fact shall issue.


http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150423/NEWS/150429594

"The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of a man claiming he was wrongly denied a concealed weapon permit by the former police chief of East Providence, a city that had not given such a license for 10 years."

However, read this....

"In October 2012, the police chief sent Gadomski a letter denying the permit based on what the chief deemed a lack of need and because Gadomski had two misdemeanor charges from 20 years earlier. The charges — destruction of property and possession of alcohol by a minor — were both disclosed in the application and ultimately dismissed."

The police chief was accused of abusing his position by putting his own discretion on the conceal carry license. But the State Supreme Court ruled in the applicant's favor.

While it would seem that "Shall Issue" is now the order of the day in Rhode Island with this ruling. Does it only apply to this particular case only? Or where a city like East Providence has denied issuing carry permits? The article doesn't come right out and say that Shall Issue is the order of the day, although it sounds like it.

"Rhode Island law dictates that authorities in any city or town "shall" issue a license or permit to carry a loaded handgun to a person 21 or older "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, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed."

So is Rhode Island "shall issue"...and subject to how you read into this? I'll post this and let others comment on it.
.

 

[gc70]

The court's ruling does not read like "shall" issue.

There are three components to the statutory scheme set forth in § 11-47-11: (1) an age and residency requirement; (2) a reason requirement; and (3) a suitability requirement.
.....
The reason requirement demands that an applicant has either (i) a good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property, or (ii) any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver. Lastly, the suitability requirement necessitates that all applicants must be a “suitable person” to be licensed.

What I see in the ruling is that the court found: (1) the generic denial letter sent to the applicant by the Police Chief was inadequate, and; (2) the specific reasons the Police Chief offered in court were also inadequate (nitpicking the applicant's reason and claiming unsuitability based on two decades-old arrests of the applicant, for which charges were subsequently dismissed).