My friend is looking to get a gun license and currently lives in Bellingham. She is moving to a town in RI and asked me a few questions that I did not know the answers to. First question is how is RI with issuing gun licenses (unrestricted) to residents? Second, if she got a license in MA (again hopefully unrestricted), then moved to RI, would that transfer just like moving from town to town within MA? Or does her MA license then become a non-resident license and she would have to apply in RI for a new license anyway? Thank you in advance for any help.
-
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.
Moving gun license from MA town to RI town?
- Thread starter r_leblanc84
- Start date
If she moves to RI her MA license will be worthless and she will have to apply for a new non-resident license.
I'm not too familiar with RI laws, but she will almost certainly need to take whatever class RI requires to purchase handguns or get a CCW permit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Rhode_Island
I'm not too familiar with RI laws, but she will almost certainly need to take whatever class RI requires to purchase handguns or get a CCW permit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Rhode_Island
Want to own that 30 round magazine, no problem
Want to own the new Gen4 Glock, no problem
Want a flash hider, no problem
(See where I am going with this?)
In RI, the only license you need is to carry concealed. Ownership of well, anything doesn't require a license (except NFA class 4 firearms). If you want to buy a pistol, you need a blue card, which is administered by the DEM and you can get it through the local gun store.
If you want to get a carry permit, that is administered through the local town. Some towns issue, some towns are a PIA. Check out rifol.org as your questions will be addressed with some quite knowledgeable folks there and have relevant case law.
Want to own the new Gen4 Glock, no problem
Want a flash hider, no problem
(See where I am going with this?)
In RI, the only license you need is to carry concealed. Ownership of well, anything doesn't require a license (except NFA class 4 firearms). If you want to buy a pistol, you need a blue card, which is administered by the DEM and you can get it through the local gun store.
If you want to get a carry permit, that is administered through the local town. Some towns issue, some towns are a PIA. Check out rifol.org as your questions will be addressed with some quite knowledgeable folks there and have relevant case law.
bob6180
NES Member
not necessarily. I just moved back to Ma from Pa (I know, I know) and found out that my LTC was still active as I had dutifully informed the state and my local PD that I had moved. I simply had to do another address change when I moved back. I was stunned.
Thank you all for the help. I'll check out those websites and get back to her what I find. Thanks again.
Concealed carry permits through RI towns are supposed to be 'shall-issue'. East Providence recently lost a court case and was forced to approve a resident's license.
Otherwise, nothing special for long rifles or shotguns just over 18 w/ drivers license.
Handguns require a blue card which consists of a few basic safety questions administered at a gun store and approved by DEM.
Otherwise, nothing special for long rifles or shotguns just over 18 w/ drivers license.
Handguns require a blue card which consists of a few basic safety questions administered at a gun store and approved by DEM.
See here for recent court decisions + NES discussion regarding permits to carry.
Edit forgot the link: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ry-licensing-decision-out-of-RI-Supreme-Court
Edit forgot the link: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ry-licensing-decision-out-of-RI-Supreme-Court
Last edited:
Blue card to buy, but not to own.
Most LEOs probably dont know this , so it would be a good idea to get one regardless.
This is not exactly true. The court stated that the application was not processed according to the law (11-47-11) and the wrong standard was used (11-47-18) and ordered the Chief to reconsider the application. The court even stated that if he was denied again, he would have to petition the court for a cert again. The RI Supreme Court does not have the authority to force the licensing authority to issue a permit.
In the decision yes there was an issue with East Providence's application process in which 11-47-18 was references not 11-47-11. (From page 9 of the opinion - page 10 of the PDF):
However the decision also references the nature of 11-47-11 (From page 5-6 in the opinion - page 6-7 of the PDF)
Of course this is from a lay person's reading of the opinion so please feel free to correct my interpretation if it is incorrect.
Really???? what the time frame here???
Jonny5,
It is correct that it is a "mandatory" license, but the applicant still must meet the criteria that is set forth in 11-47-11. The criteria are basically:
1. Be 21 years.
2. Live or have a business in town etc.
3. Have a proper reason
4. Be a suitable person.
The Chief has some discretion to determine if you meet those requirements, but if you do meet them then he SHALL ISSUE a permit. The first two requirements are pretty easy to verify so those are not an issue. The RI SCt has said that being a gun collector is a proper reason, but other than that the licensing authorities has some discretion to determine what he thinks is a proper reason. For example, someone said that they wanted a town permit so they didn't have to wait 7 days to purchase a firearm, but the Chief didn't think that was a proper reason and the applicant was denied. Some use employment as a reason and it is hard to argue against that. Unfortunately, the SCt has not (yet) said self defense is a proper reason since this is main reason why someone wants to CCW. The last requirement is that the applicant must be a suitable person, and Chief Tavares actually argues that Gadomski was not suitable because he had had a couple of arrests 20-30 years ago (no charges were filed), but the SCt rejected this argument. There are some people that are prohibited by law from possessing firearms (drunkards, mentally ill, etc.) and those would clearly not be suited. However, it is also possible that an applicant is often visited by LEO because of for example domestic disputes, partying and loud parties, convicted of DUIs, etc. I am sure a Chief would claim that this applicant is not suitable, and it would probably be up the the SCt to determine if the Chief was correct.
On another note, most local applicants in RI are denied because they don't demonstrate a need (Gadomski was also denied for this) and not because they are not suitable or have a proper reason. It baffles me that the licensing authorities don't even read the statute they are supposed to follow when it comes to issuing permits... At least if they denied applicants for not meeting one of the actual requirements they wouldn't look at stupid as they do now..
It is correct that it is a "mandatory" license, but the applicant still must meet the criteria that is set forth in 11-47-11. The criteria are basically:
1. Be 21 years.
2. Live or have a business in town etc.
3. Have a proper reason
4. Be a suitable person.
The Chief has some discretion to determine if you meet those requirements, but if you do meet them then he SHALL ISSUE a permit. The first two requirements are pretty easy to verify so those are not an issue. The RI SCt has said that being a gun collector is a proper reason, but other than that the licensing authorities has some discretion to determine what he thinks is a proper reason. For example, someone said that they wanted a town permit so they didn't have to wait 7 days to purchase a firearm, but the Chief didn't think that was a proper reason and the applicant was denied. Some use employment as a reason and it is hard to argue against that. Unfortunately, the SCt has not (yet) said self defense is a proper reason since this is main reason why someone wants to CCW. The last requirement is that the applicant must be a suitable person, and Chief Tavares actually argues that Gadomski was not suitable because he had had a couple of arrests 20-30 years ago (no charges were filed), but the SCt rejected this argument. There are some people that are prohibited by law from possessing firearms (drunkards, mentally ill, etc.) and those would clearly not be suited. However, it is also possible that an applicant is often visited by LEO because of for example domestic disputes, partying and loud parties, convicted of DUIs, etc. I am sure a Chief would claim that this applicant is not suitable, and it would probably be up the the SCt to determine if the Chief was correct.
On another note, most local applicants in RI are denied because they don't demonstrate a need (Gadomski was also denied for this) and not because they are not suitable or have a proper reason. It baffles me that the licensing authorities don't even read the statute they are supposed to follow when it comes to issuing permits... At least if they denied applicants for not meeting one of the actual requirements they wouldn't look at stupid as they do now..
And actually on #2, you don't have to live in or have a business in town. (emphasis mine)
Any just to elaborate on this for those following along, the demonstration of need is NOT part of the shall issue licensing under 11-47-11. This was affirmed by the Gadomski decision. With all that recent legal activity, it mystifies me as well as to how the local police chiefs can continue to ignore the plainly stated law. They still hang their hat on the "need" thing.
n1bsbri, you are right about #2 and that's why I said "etc." I just didn't feel like pulling up the statute and figured that anyone who wanted more info would look it up ![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Most applicants that were denied by the Chief in the past was denied because they didn't demonstrate a need, but I don't know if anyone has been denied since the Gadomski decision came out. If anyone are, I hope they let us know.
I think that going forward they will find other reasons to deny, such as claiming self defense is not a proper reason etc. However, this will most likely be litigated in court. They might also deny someone for not being suitable for anything they can find on the applicant and this will hopefully be litigated as well.
Most applicants that were denied by the Chief in the past was denied because they didn't demonstrate a need, but I don't know if anyone has been denied since the Gadomski decision came out. If anyone are, I hope they let us know.
I think that going forward they will find other reasons to deny, such as claiming self defense is not a proper reason etc. However, this will most likely be litigated in court. They might also deny someone for not being suitable for anything they can find on the applicant and this will hopefully be litigated as well.
