LTC in Warwick - question to those who know

Scarecrow

Army Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,237
Likes
737
Location
Castle Anthrax
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Is it better to go for the AG's LTC, or is the chief in Warwick a reasonable guy?

The inspector I talked to who I have to send my C&R app to(the copy) said to go for the AG's, since "it is better", which goes against what I have heard... here's the run-down of what I have BEEN TOLD:

AG permit:
Valid statewide
REALLY hard to get without "valid reason" (work, transport cash, fear for life)
7 day waiting period on all firearms purchase
2 month turnaround, at a minimum

City permit (Warwick)
Valid statewide, though many other cities cops do not recognize it and will have to call the Warwick station to verify it
Easier to get, but still requires "Valid reason"(see above)
No 7 day waiting period
get it faster

I do not know how much of this is conjecture, as I have conflicting stories, namely that one place is saying the city one is processed faster than the AG, the other source says the AG will get it done faster; One place is saying the AG is hard to work with compared to the Warwick COP, and another source is saying the opposite...

Any body have any light they can shed on this? I might have to just pick one and then get ready to lawyer up...
 
The chief does not issue permits in Warwick. The commissioners board does.

Town permits are valid statewide, why would a cop know you are carrying? Why volunteer such information?

Warwick for the most part follows the law.

A Warwick permit will exempt you from the waiting period and allow for private sales without any paperwork.

A town permit is for concealed carry only.

The AG permit allows for concealed or open carry.

The AG's office will want to see a good reason for wanting a permit.
 
Or you can get both. But do the AG permit first. If you apply for the AG permit they will deny you and you will have to go to an appeal. You will sit in an office and the two BCI detectives (Chief and Vice-Chief) will be very pleasant and friendly but grill you on why you need it. Unless you fear being murdered (legitimately) they will give you a restricted target permit. This is where it is useful to have a restraining order out against someone- just kidding. This restriction has no force of law and they know it, but it is a way to discourage you from using the permit. And if they do outright deny you after appeal, you may sue them and they do not want that. In RI, no permit is necessary to carry a gun in your trunk to a target range. If they find out you have a Town permit, they will deny you completely and tell you it's duplication and the one you have is already better than the one they could give you. So get the AG first, then get the Town permit.

But don't EVER open carry. The AG's open carry provision is intended for armed car guards and security guards. If you walk around Warwick or Providence with a sidearm and no uniform, the cops will be showing up... They'll have to let you go (assuming they decide not to charge you with disturbing the peace) but it will not be a fun experience for you.
 
This restriction has no force of law and they know it,

Even if this is true (I am not sufficiently versed on RI law to say with certainty), it could be "interesting" of one relied on a RI permit in a reciprocity state (for example, RI and AZ are, the last I checked, the only two non-res permits recognized in NV).
 
Warwick would like you to apply with the AG so they can deny you. Warwick does not have this discretion, and from what I understand they are pretty good with issuing permits if you meet the requirements in 11-47-11. However, they do charge an "application fee" of $160 on top of the permit fee because they think they can. I am not sure of what the (legal) reasoning for the licensing authority is to charge this fee for them to do their adminstrative duties as required by State Law... However, Chairwoman Boxter thinks she is above the law and can do whatever she would like to... Her attitude is that if you don't like the fee, you can apply somewhere else (7-12-2011 meeting)...

Unless there is a specific reason why you need an AG permit, such as for Open Carry or if you go to TX who only recognizes the AG permit, I would recommend the Town Permit. They are less likely to give you a restricted permit, and you don't have a 7 day wait when purchasing a firearm. Even though there is no legality to a restriction in RI in my opinion (there is no case law on this), you could still get in trouble if you are arrested and it could cost you a lot of money on lawyer fees, especially if you are in a reciprocity state.
 
This is where it is useful to have a restraining order out against someone- just kidding.

Does having an RO against someone make a difference for the AG? I ask this as I was thinking of applying for a non-resident permit in RI, and I do have a restraining order against someone.

Anyone have any experience with this?

Thanks.
 
Does having an RO against someone make a difference for the AG? I ask this as I was thinking of applying for a non-resident permit in RI, and I do have a restraining order against someone.

Anyone have any experience with this?

Thanks.

The AG in RI has the full discretion to issue/deny permits, but I would think that a RO would help. Since you live out of State other things such as where the person whom you have a RO against lives as well as what your ties to RI is will also be taken into account.
 
The AG is all about "need". They feel that the only people that should be allowed to carry concealed are those that can demonstrate a legitimate need. While self defense is a need, they are all a bunch of block-heads at the AG's office and seem to think that bad things never happen to people that don't deserve it. And I believe that they think the possession of a firearm by any "untrained" citizens increases the risk of bad things happening- nevermind how firearms illiterate most cops are.

So I suspect that if you came into the AG's office and could demonstrate that someone has repeatedly attacked or stalked you and you actually feared for your life, they would give you a permit. But just because you have a restraining order is probably not enough. If the person is obeying the restraining order, the AG has no reason to believe it is not working (because of course, a person who needs to have an RO placed on them is obviously level headed enough to obey it.....). If they have repeatedly broken the RO and you can convince the AG the person is a nut, you may have a case. I cannot point to a specific example but in the past 4 years of reading posts on RI CCW and talking to people, I have been told that this approach has been used successfully. But they cops are not dumb (or at least easily fooled on this issue) and it has to be a convincing case.

If you ran a business and had been repeatedly mugged on the street and your earnings robbed on your way to the bank, you'd probably also have a legitimate case. "Legitimate" to the AG, that is.
 
But don't EVER open carry. The AG's open carry provision is intended for armed car guards and security guards. If you walk around Warwick or Providence with a sidearm and no uniform, the cops will be showing up... They'll have to let you go (assuming they decide not to charge you with disturbing the peace) but it will not be a fun experience for you.

The AG's open carry provision was written in 1950 when 11-47-18 was passed (originally 11-47-13) and isn't intended for any class of people, it is simply a carry license, like Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma (starting in november).

That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen if you were arrested for open carrying in Rhode Island on an AG permit. It's not like other states where the law is silent, it CLEARLY says you can open carry.
 
RI Law said:
§ 11-47-18 License or permit issued by attorney general on showing of need – Issuance to retired police officers. (a) The attorney general may issue a license or permit to any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over to carry a pistol or revolver, whether concealed or not, upon his or her person upon a proper showing of need, subject to the provisions of §§ 11-47-12 and 11-47-15; that license or permit may be issued notwithstanding the provisions of § 11-47-7.
Am I to assume that this is the part that says open carry is legal if you hold a ccp? I would not hold my breath that it would not cause an arrest for a disturbing the peace charge, or inciting a riot, or some other such nonsense. Doing something completely legal that causes panic in the sheep who witness it can still get a disturbing the peace charge -I point directly at having the police called on my friends bonfire in ?Charlestown?(little drunk that night, don't remember what city, just know it was south), he had a permit for a bonfire, but the neighbors got scared at the huge flames and called the cops because "we are afraid the fire will go out of control and get our house(1.25 miles away). Doesn't take much to "disturb the peace".
 
The AG's open carry provision was written in 1950 when 11-47-18 was passed (originally 11-47-13) and isn't intended for any class of people, it is simply a carry license, like Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma (starting in november).

That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen if you were arrested for open carrying in Rhode Island on an AG permit. It's not like other states where the law is silent, it CLEARLY says you can open carry.

Yes, you are correct but, 1. Do you really want the hassle and 2. do you really have the funding or energy to fight the AG and also fight your arrest. It is well established in RI that the citizenry is meek and stupid and rarely do they fight for their rights. There are dozens of potential CCW lawsuits just "waiting to happen" in RI, but they have not.

Yes, if you have an AG permit it is legal to open carry. Just don't do it unless you're sitting on a lot of disposable income and have more time on your hands than you know what to do with.

Charlestown is a miserable little town full of cops and yuppies from New York City. They are all pretty sure they are better than you and would appreciate it if you stay of their beaches. I wish a casino gets built there someday just to piss the idiots off.
 
I agree that Rhode Islanders could have done more when it comes to exercising their rights, but there has been a lot going on the last few months that will hopefully change things:
Charlestown was sued for not having an application this winter/spring. The same day as the suit was filed, the Chief magically had an application... Just an example of how some Chiefs know the law is on the citizen's side, but they make it as difficult as they can.
Bristol is being sued over a denial (FINALLY!)
I believe Newport was served yesterday for not having an application. For 2-3 years they have been saying they are working on an application and that they will develop one, but they never did. I guess it will take a judge to tell the Chief to do his job.
Exeter, which does not have a PD, just issued their first permit last week (town clerk is the licensing authority). West Warwick and West Greenwich also have applications and will hopefully be issuing permits soon. Providence just issued a permit as well, after having held an application since March of 2011! I was told a while ago that Providence's legal department was reviewing the policy, so I assume they must have come to the conclusion that the Chief should follow the law [thinking]

All of the examples above are a result of people not wanting to give up their rights!

I know this is a little OT, but here is an example of what kind of police some people in RI have to deal with:
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/09/judge-slams-cra.html
Judge slams Cranston police, tosses evidence in murder of 6-year-old

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Superior Court Judge Judith Savage on Tuesday blocked prosecutors from using most of their evidence against Michael Patino, who's charged with murdering his girlfriend's six-year-old son, Marco Nieves.
"Based on the tsunami of illegal evidence collected by the Cranston Police Department," Savage said, "this court grants defendant's suppression motions and excludes the state's core evidence from being used at trial, including the text messages, all cell phones and their contents, all cell phone records, and critical portions of the defendant's videotaped statement and his written statement given to the police."
Savage said Patino "made a preliminary showing that numerous sworn statements made by police officers in a dozen warrants were either deliberately false or made in reckless disregard of the truth."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom