Non resident LTC

Here's my experience with them. Initial denial. I appealed. They told me outright that my reasons for unrestricted wouldn't fly. PERIOD! They told me I was on the fringe of a work restricted. Which I got. Also ended up getting a town permit so I wouldn't have to deal with them again. Got a town permit in, well let's just say incredibly fast. I won't publicly name the town.

The 2 guys in the AG office were not very nice at all to communicate with. Did you win the appeal?
 
Karalis isn't exactly friendly towards CCW applicants..

Chin had been out for a couple of years now. The rumor was that he was supporting Kilmartin's opponent in the election and that he was fired because of that.. Chin was much more pleasant than Karalis.
 
Sorry I haven't posted sooner.

UPDATE

I got home from drill Feb 6th to find a letter in the mail from the AG saying to come pick up my RI LTC. The letter was dated Feb 1, the date of my appeal! So, I went down and picked it up.....no restrictions! Yes!
 
Sorry I haven't posted sooner.

UPDATE

I got home from drill Feb 6th to find a letter in the mail from the AG saying to come pick up my RI LTC. The letter was dated Feb 1, the date of my appeal! So, I went down and picked it up.....no restrictions! Yes!

Excellent!! What was the overall basis of your appeal with your attorney? Also, if you don't mind sharing, what was the cost of your legal fees to have legal representation for the appeal?? I'm sure they may be people reading this that would be wondering what it would cost them roughly.
 
The attorney cost me $750.00.

Apparently, my "need" letter had too much of a military slant to it. And I didn't emphasize my business (NRA instructor, firearms safety). Which is what the attorney had me emphasize. The fact I'd like to expand it into RI. If I was starting from scratch and doing it all over again I think I'd seek the counsel on writing the letter of need first. Along with possibly going through a town. They even asked me at the appeal as to why I went through the AG's office. Which I told then, I never thought it would have been this much of an issue (I have 5 other LTC's along with my 03 FFL). They agreed I was more than qualified but it was the letter of need supposedly that caused the initial denial.

Chip
 
Just remember, the AG's permit is completely discretionary. Patrick Kennedy had a permit and he couldn't pass a background check to buy a 9 volt battery.
 
Went to Tiverton to pick up a LTC application for non-resident. Besides authorizing them to conduct a background check. List of last three jobs with contact information. Three references that will provide letters to be attached. In the package is a release from me to grant them access to medical, psychiatric, financial, employment, tax records, salary, public utility records, records of deposits, withdrawals and balances in checking and savings. Gaming records, educational records. And since there appears to be to limit to this I'd give them access to this forever.

I also have to "Specifically articulate a risk to life or property in the town of Tiverton that will be alleviated by carrying a concealed weapon".
 
Went to Tiverton to pick up a LTC application for non-resident. Besides authorizing them to conduct a background check. List of last three jobs with contact information. Three references that will provide letters to be attached. In the package is a release from me to grant them access to medical, psychiatric, financial, employment, tax records, salary, public utility records, records of deposits, withdrawals and balances in checking and savings. Gaming records, educational records. And since there appears to be to limit to this I'd give them access to this forever.

I also have to "Specifically articulate a risk to life or property in the town of Tiverton that will be alleviated by carrying a concealed weapon".

First and foremost, there is an "or" that they are missing which also mentions "proper reason". Judging by the educational system in Tiverton, doesn't surprise me they missed, then again, they also are probably making it difficult intentionally. Per 11-47-11 as long you meet the 3 requirements (residence, proper reason and/or reason to fear injury or death and that you are suitable, you shall be granted a permit.

I know Tiverton is struggling, both financially and with resources. Even if you were to fill the info out it's doubtful they would process it quickly. You really have 2 options, apply filling out only the statuary requirements outlined in 11-47-11 (reference requirements are vauge as the court might uphold on "suitability" requirement) and sue almost immediately at the 90 day mark and further drag it out in time and financial resources to both you and the town, or apply in another town, one perhaps that might be easier. Also keep in mind that there might be some legislation soon to make statutory law reflect case law.

For reference, I am including a link to the actual state law: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title11/11-47/11-47-11.HTM
You can quickly identify the statuary parts of the application and the non statutory parts and read between the lines in what the application is trying to accomplish.......
 
Last edited:
Went to Tiverton to pick up a LTC application for non-resident. Besides authorizing them to conduct a background check. List of last three jobs with contact information. Three references that will provide letters to be attached. In the package is a release from me to grant them access to medical, psychiatric, financial, employment, tax records, salary, public utility records, records of deposits, withdrawals and balances in checking and savings. Gaming records, educational records. And since there appears to be to limit to this I'd give them access to this forever.

I also have to "Specifically articulate a risk to life or property in the town of Tiverton that will be alleviated by carrying a concealed weapon".

Wow! Do you have to piss in a cup (witnessed) and give a DNA sample too?
 
Went to Tiverton to pick up a LTC application for non-resident. Besides authorizing them to conduct a background check. List of last three jobs with contact information. Three references that will provide letters to be attached. In the package is a release from me to grant them access to medical, psychiatric, financial, employment, tax records, salary, public utility records, records of deposits, withdrawals and balances in checking and savings. Gaming records, educational records. And since there appears to be to limit to this I'd give them access to this forever.

I also have to "Specifically articulate a risk to life or property in the town of Tiverton that will be alleviated by carrying a concealed weapon".

Damn Politicians and Lawyers have really F***ED Up most of this country. [angry]
 
Sounds like Tiverton is using an application to join the force. If you were applying to be a PO then that could make sense to be vetted like that but to exercise your rights!? They love to discourage
 
Wow, Tiverton used to be good when it came to issuing, but it seems like they have changed their tune. Mail in the application without signing the release forms and see how it goes. They cannot (legally) deny you for not signing the release form.
 
Sounds like Tiverton is using an application to join the force. If you were applying to be a PO then that could make sense to be vetted like that but to exercise your rights!? They love to discourage

Pretty much, the Lincoln Chief has straight up told NewportRI and myself in person this as well.
 
I read through the thread, here is what I got from Johnston:

"We are currently reviewing our policy regarding carry permits and are not handing out any applications at this time. We are rewriting our policy. Try back in a week or so."
 
What is that document? Is it a draft or is it now law? It looks like they removed town licensing? Please explain...

9a62cbfeba3ebd510cca7d741aa62e21.jpg



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What is that document? Is it a draft or is it now law? It looks like they removed town licensing? Please explain...

It's a bill. An awful one at that. Contact the bills sponsors to voice your opposition:
Sen. Louis DiPalma: (401) 847-8540 [email protected]
Sen. William J. Conley: (401) 438-1924 [email protected]
Sen. James A. Seveney: (401) 683-3046 and (401) 626-7227 [email protected]
Sen. Cynthia Armour Coyne: (401) 222-6655 and (401)-245-4005 [email protected]

It's clear cut what this bill does, eliminates 11-47-11. However here is a cliff note version of how the state Supreme Court interprets 11-47-11 from the Mosby Case:
Article 1, Section 22

 We begin by considering whether the constitutional right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in art. 1, sec. 22, of the Rhode Island Constitution is violated by the licensing framework set forth in the Firearms Act. We do so, however, in light of the well established principle that this Court “will refrain from passing on a constitutional question when it is clear that the case before us can be decided on another point and that a determination of such a question is not indispensably necessary for a disposition of the case.”

Although we conclude that the “bear arms” language of art. 1, sec. 22 is employed in the military context, we also recognize an individual right flowing to the people to keep and bear arms.   However, we are not convinced that resolution of the issues before us today requires us to define the extent of these rights or establish the limits of art. 1, sec. 22 because we are of the opinion that, when viewed in its entirety, the statutory framework under review serves to vindicate an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the licensing scheme set forth in the Firearms Act is reasonable legislative regulation of weapons that falls squarely within the state's police power

Because the Firearms Act provides for both discretionary and mandatory licensing to qualified applicants, the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms is fulfilled.


Ergo, thus without mandatory licensing, the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms is NOT fulfilled by the Firearms Act. So what does that mean? Well a constitutional scholar would argue that means Constitutional Carry would apply, meaning that since there is no mandatory licensing scheme, the state constitution is the sole law for keeping and bearing arms.
 
Back
Top Bottom