Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RI high court upholds CCW restriction

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Stebalo, Jun 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Texas
    http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=129-06102004


    WASHINGTON, June 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the 4-1 ruling today by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Mosby v. McAteer, upholding the constitutionality of Rhode Island's long-standing law restricting the carrying of concealed weapons to persons with a legitimate need. The Court strongly rejected arguments by the gun lobby that an "individual right to bear arms" provides a right to carry hidden, loaded weapons in public. Instead, the Court held that the restrictive concealed carry law "is reasonable legislative regulation of weapons that falls squarely within the state's police power."

    [more about the Brady's patting selves on back at the link above]
     
  2. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    I dunno if the Brady Center is spinning the ruling. Can anyone from RI find the actual opinion?
     
  3. Boats

    Boats member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,705
    Location:
    Oregon
    In light of the appellate ruling that said Article 1, Sec. 5 of the RI Constitution (RKBA) wouldn't have prevailed even if relied upon, I doubt this is Brady spin.

    Then again, it is simply another paternalistic Northeastern government telling the serfs to get their heads back down and keep sending in their taxes. Are you really surprised considering where the case came up?
     
  4. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Sigh.

    They didn't gather evidence of racial inequities in the process. So they were dealing with "rational basis" versus "strict scrutiny".

    We won't make that mistake in California.
     
  5. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    Not so fast folks!

    The Brady Bunch basically released an extremely misleading press release, as Jim Archer of CRAL-RI pointed out, don't believe anything until you actually read it.

    More details here .

    Essentially Mosby won the case. The AG no longer has unfettered discretion and secrecy to deny permits, and they confirmed that the other licensing scheme, the licensing scheme that is actually modeled after NH, is SHALL-ISSUE in nature. This is actually a huge win for RI because now, the RI Supreme Court has stated unquivically that the RIGL 11-47-11 is a shall-issue statute in nature, and that Mosby is entitled and required to be issued a permit under 11-47-11, and basically bypass the AG.

    Now the work is going to be forcing the issuing authorities to actually issue permits to residents. This may take a few years to clean up, but essentially, for non-residents of RI, all you have to do is to find ONE town that is willing to issue a permit lawfully under the Mosby case, and go to it.
     
  6. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    What? No comments from anyone here? :)
     
  7. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    What is there to say? Good work, Lonnie!
     
  8. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Texas
    Good work Lonnie. Thanks for setting us straight. That is good news then.

    I shoulda realized that was a Brady press release and automatically assumed it was suspect. Well, live and learn. Thanks.
     
  9. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,051
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    For the time being, most court rulings are going to be of the "yes, it's an individual right, but restrictions/regulation are valid in light of the state's power of police", which will leave the door open to vpc's dogma that "No court has upheld, therefore it doesn't exist", and this certainly seems to be of that ilk.


    This will then pin the level of infringement to the court's current doctrine and level of enlightenment on the extent of governmental regulatory/restrictive powers. In some cases, "the compelling interest of the state/society" has no boundaries, and in others it does. This comes to the heart of almost all Bill of Right's issues, and the very real threat that it might be found that it is in the "interest of the state" to insulate the B of R from practical application, thus rendering it an inneffective limitation on the powers of government.

    This in turn threatens to entirely topple the Lockean basis of government, which holds that government has only the strictly enumerated powers granted to it by the People, who reserve all other rights and prerogatives.

    If/once that is achieved, the Republic is toppled. Elections will continue to be held, congress will continue to convene in session, the executive will perform his office, and the courts will continue to consider cases, but these pale parodies of the functioning of the Republic will be the same as the continued pulse and respiration of a brain dead patient.
     
  10. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I thought it interesting that the ruling used the phrase "has been fulfilled" in reference to RKBA and licensing. That struck me as rather crafty language, since it presuposses that licensing is okay, and I don't think they could say RKBA "has not been infringed". It's more like there has been a token acknowledgement of RKBA.
     
  11. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    Well, it's like in Indiana. The case of Shubert v. DeBard decided by the Indiana Supreme in 1980 made it clear that the Indiana permit system is shall-issue in nature, and that any attempt to make it not so by issuing authority was a violation of the state RKBA clause.

    What the Supreme Court of RI essentially said was RIGL 11-47-11 was an alternative to the AG permit system set up by RIGL 11-47-18, that Mosby is ENTITLED to a permit per 11-47-11, and that it's "mandatory issue" by default. RI is shall-issue in paper, but may issue in practice because of issuing authorities refusing to follow the law.
     
  12. carpettbaggerr

    carpettbaggerr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,676
    Sounds like a solid win for the people of RI. And it sounds like the Court slapped down the AG pretty good. He's gotta be embarassed. Maybe he'll actually follow the law now?
     
  13. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    I have to read the court's decision on this. The situation in RI is that often the authorities have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do ANYTHING.
     
  14. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Why not appeal to the Governor on that? Local resistance would be defying the authority of the Governor's signature on the legislation. It's not al la carte. Jobs should be at stake here. Oaths of office should be reviewed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page