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.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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.
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.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.
Mosby and Archer were in State Court.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?
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.
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.
Yeah, I was just thinking myself that I hope your lawyer know about this..Well that’s terrifying news to me. Need to start houndingthe lawyer again.
02-04-2015 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED
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.
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.
We need some legislation in RI that will make denials subject to the APA, and hopefully this is coming soon..
APA?
American Planning Association?
American Psychological Association?
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)
We need some legislation in RI that will make denials subject to the APA, and hopefully this is coming soon..