Rhode Island SCt - Gadomski v Tavares - CCW is procedural, not discretionary

[Librarian]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=200006

Norman T. Gadomski, Jr.,
v.
Joseph H. Tavares, Chief of Police for the City of East Providence.
No. 2014-72-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Opinion Filed April 22, 2015.

Basically, 'you can deny for reasons but your denial has to clearly state those and how they apply to the applicant'.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Librarian

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=200006

Basically, 'you can deny for reasons but your denial has to clearly state those and how they apply to the applicant'.

A weird situation in RI in that local authorities are "shall" issue and the AG, who would handle non-residents, is "may" issue.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Librarian

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=200006

Basically, 'you can deny for reasons but your denial has to clearly state those and how they apply to the applicant'.

An EXCELLENT Decision. THIS should be the standard for Shall Issue.


The Raisuli

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

An EXCELLENT Decision. THIS should be the standard for Shall Issue.


The Raisuli

Maybe even used as reference for future decisions (one can only hope)

[wireless]

...within this state for four (4) years from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed...

Reminds me of CA May issue quite a bit.

webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title11/11-47/11-47-11.HTM

[thorium]

Thanks for the "content curation" Lib.

Glad to see RI has established intellectually objective due process instead of the subjective mockery of due process "good cause" or "suitability" or whatever you want to call a catch all ability of a bureacrat to deny enumerated constitutional rights on a whim...

Love the "conclusion" the most... Basically says:
1) you will reconsider this
2) you will state facts, not unsubstantial personal judgememts ("conclusions") if you wish to deny again
3) future CCW holder can come straight back (RI Supreme Court) to us if you deny poorly again, they will not go back to square 1 (as the bureacrat would love), no more fees, etc.

...they're basically saying "approve him and don't waste more of our time, you're in a losing battle"

[press1280]

Originally Posted by lailemiro

they're basically saying "approve him and don't waste more of our time, you're in a losing battle"

Keep in mind the RI court is only following precedent and the law as written, this isn't a RKBA challenge. A re-write of state law so all permits are "may-issue" and we'd probably see a Kachalsky/Drake/Woollard opinion.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

A weird situation in RI in that local authorities are "shall" issue and the AG, who would handle non-residents, is "may" issue.

RI is "statutory" Shall Issue for local CCW permits.

Does this case make RI "judicial"/"virtual"/"constructive" Shall Issue for its AG's non-residential state CCW permits?

If so, whoever updates this map needs to update it once more adding a little more blue to the NE and increasing the # of Shall Issue states to 37 and reducing the May Issue states to 7.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

RI is "statutory" Shall Issue for local CCW permits.

Does this case make RI "judicial"/"virtual"/"constructive" Shall Issue for its AG's non-residential state CCW permits?

If so, whoever updates this map needs to update it once more adding a little more blue to the NE and increasing the # of Shall Issue states to 37 and reducing the May Issue states to 7.

From what I've seen the AG permits are definitely your classic "may" issue, probably not NJ strict but self defense by itself won't work.

[wireless]

Oaklahoma is CC for residents and residents of CC states.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Librarian

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=200006

Basically, 'you can deny for reasons but your denial has to clearly state those and how they apply to the applicant'.

That's a good "bottom line" summary of the case. It doesn't really improve or even change the law, just slaps down a CLEO who thinks he's a CA urban anti sheriff and can get away with whatever he wants....

Originally Posted by Paladin

RI is "statutory" Shall Issue for local CCW permits.

Does this case make RI "judicial"/"virtual"/"constructive" Shall Issue for its AG's non-residential state CCW permits?

If so, whoever updates this map needs to update it once more adding a little more blue to the NE and increasing the # of Shall Issue states to 37 and reducing the May Issue states to 7.

I got around to reading the opinion. A few points from it.

RI is statutory SI for a CCW from a local IA, but, besides not being legally barred, you must meet: (1) age & residency requirements; (2) have either a "good reason" to fear injury (i.e., attack) to your person or property OR "any other proper reason" to carry (like our GC requirement); and (3) must be a "suitable person" for getting a permit (like our GMC requirement), and the IA must "exercise discretion" in determining the latter two. IOW, even the local permits sound awfully lot like May Issue....

The IA said he failed #2 & 3. The Court pretty much shot down the IA's justification saying he's not a suitable person. It also shot down them using the AG's reason standard because the AG issues under a separate May Issue licensing procedure. It said in a few places in different ways the IA must show evidence and explain its rationale for a denial, it can't merely declare "Nyet!"

The IA has 90 days to redo their evaluation of his application, and he's got 60 days after the IA's decision to decide whether to bring it to the RI SC again (via amended pet. for writ of cert.).

What is not at issue at this point is how a legislated requirement of showing either "good reason" to fear injury or "any other proper reason" to carry is constitutional under the RI Constitution which provides that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (Art 1, Sec 22).

Bottom line: nothing has really changed other than the Court telling the local IAs to "obey the law". (What a radical concept!) Once the IAs are obeying the law, the next step is challenging the law's "reason requirement" as an unconstitutional infringement under the RI Constitution.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The IA has 90 days to redo their evaluation of his application, and he's got 60 days after the IA's decision to decide whether to bring it to the RI SC again (via amended pet. for writ of cert.).

What is not at issue at this point is how a legislated requirement of showing either "good reason" to fear injury or "any other proper reason" to carry is constitutional under the RI Constitution which provides that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (Art 1, Sec 22).

Bottom line: nothing has really changed other than the Court telling the local IAs to "obey the law". (What a radical concept!) Once the IAs are obeying the law, the next step is challenging the law's "reason requirement" as an unconstitutional infringement under the RI Constitution.

The 90 days were up late last month. Any word on whether they issued Gadomski a CCW or not???