• 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

newportri said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would the Archer and Mosby case be considered state cases, and since they weren't adhered to in the Bristol case, would that elevate it to the Federal level? Other than setting a federal precedent case, why else would it be there? Aren't there already federal cases that deal with this?
 
n1bsbri said:
It might be straight forward, but it will be nice to have some case law to back up the whole "need" thing. I hope that's one of the beneficial results of this case, and it doesn't get sidetracked.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but we have a much stronger statute with Shall Issue, but unfortunately the law is ignored. Maybe after we get some case law on "proper reason" with respect to 11-47-11 and denials we could go for "demonstrating a need", but this is a much higher bar and more difficult to achieve.
 
RImike said:
Would the Archer and Mosby case be considered state cases, and since they weren't adhered to in the Bristol case, would that elevate it to the Federal level? Other than setting a federal precedent case, why else would it be there? Aren't there already federal cases that deal with this?
Click to expand...
Mosby and Archer were in State Court.
A case is not automatically elevated to the next 'level' courts and a petition will have to be filed in each court.
I 'believe' (from reading this thread) that the only reason the Bristol case is in Federal court is because a deadline was missed in the RI Supreme Court and there was no going back. The Chief's response was essentially the same on the second denial, so I don't think the court would have had a different opinion of the Chief's response and the court 'should' have ordered the Chief to issue a permit.
I don't know how the Federal court will approach this case. One argument that the defendant used was that this was a State Law issue and should be resolved in State court, but the attorney didn't respond in time after the second denial from what I understand.
There are several Federal cases that deal with this issue, but the courts are split and there is no way of knowing how they rule in this case especially with the least gun friendly judge on the circuit being assigned to the case.. I would have felt much more comfortable with this case in State court.
 
newportri said:
Yeah, but we have a much stronger statute with Shall Issue, but unfortunately the law is ignored. Maybe after we get some case law on "proper reason" with respect to 11-47-11 and denials we could go for "demonstrating a need", but this is a much higher bar and more difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...

Yes, I didn't word my response very well. The case being discussed in this thread (AFAIK) is about 11-47-11 and "proper reason". If the plaintiff is affirmed, it would be a repudiation of Bristol using need criteria for issuance of the permit.

I agree with your assessment that this would be better in State court.
 
It seems like pretty much every licensing authority in RI refers to "need" as a requirement to issue a permit despite that the word does not appear in the statute (11-47-11)... I assume this has a lot to do with applications being copied from the AG's application.
 
newportri said:
It seems like pretty much every licensing authority in RI refers to "need" as a requirement to issue a permit despite that the word does not appear in the statute (11-47-11)... I assume this has a lot to do with applications being copied from the AG's application.
Click to expand...

Plus the towns like to reinforce the fiction that 11-47-11 has a need component to it. They have a lot of applicants convinced of that for sure.
 
Yes, and unfortunately, many Rhode Islanders fall for it and don't bother to apply since they don't feel the can demonstrate a need. A lot of people like to complain about the permitting process, but few are willing to do anything about it.
 
Yes, please don't let him drop the ball! There are quite a few of us pulling for you on this case!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Did you get a hold of your lawyer?
I find it a little strange that the court needs a telecon for this.. Shouldn't all relevant information be filed with the court for record keeping??
 
Spoke with lawyer. He is aware of the meeting. Apparently this is pretty common in federal court, the judge will set the schedule for summery judgement and such after this "meeting". So we will see what happens.
 
All they really did was put a time frame on everything. Discovery will be completed by March 24th, then we have 60 days to file a brief/ file for summery judgement. Then they have another 60 days to respond, then the judge decides. (short version) So we should have a verdict by early/ mid summer. Then we will see if we need to appeal to the 1st circuit.
 
Yesterday the Rhode Island Supreme Court delivered a victory to Rhode Island gun owners who have been wrongfully denied a pistol permit because they did not "demonstrate a need". The court stated that the wrong standard (the AG standard where you have to demonstrate a need) and that an applicant does NOT need to demonstrate a need under RIGL 11-47-11. The court also stated that there was no evidence that the applicant was not a suitable person. The court ordered the Chief to issue a new decision within 90 days.
https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/Opinions/14-72.pdf
 
On August 21, 2012, petitioner’s counsel sent a third letter to Tavares requesting copies
of certain records pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 38-2-2. The letter requested copies of all East
Providence records for the years 2007 through 2012 showing the number of applications for a
license to carry a concealed weapon, the number of applications for such a license that were
granted, and the time between receipt of an application and the issuance of a permit or denial of a
request. Subsequently, Gadomski’s counsel received a letter from Tavares responding to
petitioner’s requests. The response indicated that, to Tavares’s knowledge, no license to carry a
concealed weapon had been issued within the last decade and that, in order to receive a license,
all requirements of the application must be met.
Click to expand...

[thinking]

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, the petition for writ of certiorari is
granted and the respondent’s decision denying the petitioner’s application for a license to carry a
concealed weapon is quashed. Additionally, the respondent, or his successor, is directed to issue
a new decision on the petitioner’s application within ninety days of the date of this opinion and
to set forth therein the findings and conclusions upon which the decision is based. The new
decision should take into account any supplemental material that was submitted in connection
with the application. This Court holds that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the new decision, he
may file an amended petition for writ of certiorari within sixty days of the issuance of the
decision. In that event, no additional filing fee will be required.
Click to expand...

[thinking][thinking][thinking][thinking]

Decision summary in English:

We agree you got ****ed along with every other person in the known past and we're very sad that we can't find good legal ground in which we may support the chief's decision to **** you that wouldn't immediately get smashed in federal court. So, our wonderful solution is to give the chief a second 3 month long chance to again rape you with no lube. Hopefully he will, after which we will give you three months to submit another rape charge. We then may hopefully deny said rape, because the chief will have some new reason we can support, that the federal court won't want to touch. In the meantime you will bleed money to lawyers and still not have a permit for at least another year. Our work here is done.

Decisions like this, and the ludicrous time they take to occur are the reasons why the court system is 100% useless.
 
Last edited:
The Gadomski suit was in the Rhode Island Supreme Court, not in Federal court where the Gendreau case is (this thread).

I was also disappointed that the court didn't order the Chief to issue a permit, but IANAL and it 'could' be that they were not authorized to do that. The petition was to review if the application was processed correctly, and they found that it was NOT and therefore ordered the Chief to do it again.
I filed a very similar petition for a cert review with the same court over a denial in Newport, RI, and they did NOT take my case. It is frustrating to have to deal with this when the court at one point said appeals go to the RI Supreme Court, but when I petition them they don't want to take the case (they don't HAVE to take it) [angry]
We need some legislation in RI that will make denials subject to the APA, and hopefully this is coming soon..
 
newportri said:
The Gadomski suit was in the Rhode Island Supreme Court, not in Federal court where the Gendreau case is (this thread).

I was also disappointed that the court didn't order the Chief to issue a permit, but IANAL and it 'could' be that they were not authorized to do that. The petition was to review if the application was processed correctly, and they found that it was NOT and therefore ordered the Chief to do it again.
I filed a very similar petition for a cert review with the same court over a denial in Newport, RI, and they did NOT take my case. It is frustrating to have to deal with this when the court at one point said appeals go to the RI Supreme Court, but when I petition them they don't want to take the case (they don't HAVE to take it) [angry]
We need some legislation in RI that will make denials subject to the APA, and hopefully this is coming soon..
Click to expand...

One can only hope. I honestly don't know how you guys can tolerate that system. I got out of CT and looking back I don't know why I didn't leave sooner.
 
It's hit or miss here in RI. I got my permit right after Sandy Hook, however the next own over will arbitrarily deny permits. What we really need is a court case that compells the chief(s) to issue permit in accordance with the law. In the past, that was never clarified, until now. The next supreme court case I foresee will involve just that.
 
APA = Administrative Procedures Act
Essentially it means that the RI Superior Court will review the case and can reverse a decision. Going to APA route is a much better solution that to petition the RI Supreme Court since the Superior Court HAVE to take the case. In addition, if the decision is reversed, the licensing authority has to pay for legal fees. Since the law is SHALL ISSUE I am pretty confident that the court will issue a favorable decision after reviewing a denial as long as the applicant meets the statutory requirements. I expect that after the Chief looses a few cases and have to pay the legal fees they will start to follow the law. I would much rather do this than to appeal the decision with the Chief or some other board that don't want to issue permits anyway.
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title42/42-35/index.htm
 

Similar threads

Private tranfer from Tenn to RI
Replies
16
Views
497
dhuze
dhuze
Please consider other towns than Foster.
2
Replies
30
Views
619
Toast
Toast
If I obtained non-resident LTC in one town, can I renew it elsewhere?
Replies
2
Views
319
The Anchor
The Anchor
Westerly RI wants to know if you have AIDS
Replies
26
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Qualifying non resident ltc in Rhode Island
Replies
7
Views
978
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Back
Top Bottom