-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
May be time to Lawyer up
- Thread starter Neverknowsbest
- Start date
Good luck. Please keep us posted.
It would be nice if http://hopkinscenter.org/ would go back on line, I would like to read about this as it progresses.
I think it was good that he still denied you since now there is a good chance we will get some good case law in Rhode Island. I still haven't heard anything on my case, but maybe the RI Supreme Court combines our cases since they are similar.
You can find the petition, objection, and order on RIFOL's web page.
http://www.rifol.org/litigation.php
You can find the petition, objection, and order on RIFOL's web page.
http://www.rifol.org/litigation.php
It depends a little where you live. Some RI towns are better than MA, while other are worse. However, I think the law is better in RI for gun owners, now we just need the licensing authorities to understand the law they are supposed to enforce.... Hopefully, we can get the RI Supreme Court how the law should be interpreted.
How about a status update!
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Hope things work out .
Missing a court deadline... that's a darn painful way to lose the chance to fight for your rights in court.
that about sums it up.
Palladin
NES Member
go for his nuts
![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
Yup.
I just called the Supreme Court clerk and they didn't have any recent updates on this case. Who told you about this, your lawyer?
From what I understand, your lawyer should have filed another petition within 30 days of the second denial, is that correct?
From what I understand, your lawyer should have filed another petition within 30 days of the second denial, is that correct?
Unfortunately to the best of my knowledge they only place it is posted is on PACER (the federal court document search program), and that's a pain to sign up for. If you already have a pacer account the case number is [SIZE=+1]1:14-cv-00337-M-LDA[/SIZE]
Palladin
NES Member
Finally some movement in the case again. It is interesting that Bristol denies that you are a suitable person (see items #33 or #34 in their response)... Hopefully there is nothing about you that we don't know about ;-)
With the Archer Case, the towns were compelled to issue permit applications pursuant to 11-47-11, irrelevant of the AG permit. With this case, hopefully they will be compelled to issue the permits.
#33: Gendreau is a suitable person for a concealed carry permit pursuant to G.L. § 11-47-11(a).
Where as in the Mosby case, they define suitability as:
So unless Gendreau falls into one of these categories, he is therefore suitable
#34:Bristol Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 to the extent that self defense,
firearms collecting, and increased employment opportunities may not be sufficient
purposes for a concealed carry permit pursuant to § 11-47-11(a).
Key text of 11-47-11(a):
Where as the Mosby V Devine decision revealed this:
So Yes, having a C&R is proper reason.
I wonder what Bristol's end game here is, to force this to the national level and see what happens?
Haven't we already had a national case where firearm rights extend beyond the home?
I wonder who's footing the Town Solicitor's bill in Bristol.
#33: Gendreau is a suitable person for a concealed carry permit pursuant to G.L. § 11-47-11(a).
Where as in the Mosby case, they define suitability as:
So unless Gendreau falls into one of these categories, he is therefore suitable
#34:Bristol Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 to the extent that self defense,
firearms collecting, and increased employment opportunities may not be sufficient
purposes for a concealed carry permit pursuant to § 11-47-11(a).
Key text of 11-47-11(a):
Where as the Mosby V Devine decision revealed this:
And goes on to say that:
So Yes, having a C&R is proper reason.
I wonder what Bristol's end game here is, to force this to the national level and see what happens?
Haven't we already had a national case where firearm rights extend beyond the home?
I wonder who's footing the Town Solicitor's bill in Bristol.
Last edited:
The tax payers in Bristol are paying for it.
However, I have heard that the RI Attorney General's office has said they will pay up to $10,000 in legal fees to towns that are being sued for pistol permit denials. I have not confirmed this, and I am sure they will deny it.
If the AG's office indeed provided to the money to Bristol, there should be a paper trail of the money..
I think the solicitor only care about billing the town and doesn't care whether he win or lose and I think it is pretty obvious that Bristol does not have a good chance in court with this case (although I am sure he/she is telling Bristol their case is strong).
The Chief has completely ignored the law when processing the application since the denial was essentially because the applicant didn't "demonstrate a need". It's too bad this wasn't resolved in State Supreme court since this really is straight forward case of not following State Law.
