Hi All...
For anyone who does not know, H7390 (in the House) and it's companion bill in the Senate (don't have that number off hand) seeks to reform concealed carry permit issuance in RI. Despite what you may have been told, this is a good bill. In fact, it's a very good bill. I would know. I wrote half of it. Sadly, there is organized opposition to this bill from gun-rights activists.
Broadly speaking, there are two major portions to the bill. One that modifies RIGL 11-47-11, which is the statute controlling a police chief issued carry permit and the other half which modifies 11-47-18, which is the statute that controls Attorney General issued carry permits. My involvement was with the police chief half, as well as the addition of a definition to control who is suitable and a change to the fee.
I wrote this bill with the assistance of Jared (who posts here), three attorneys, The RIFOL group, the CRAL group, the RI Rifle and Revolver (AKA Gail and Steve Hogan) group, The RI Second Amendment Coalition (AKA the Frank and Mike group), a number of gun-rights activists in Exeter (who have some unique concerns), two former members of the Assembly and others. I personally met with each of these groups at least once and often several times. The bill underwent six revisions before every group involved found it acceptable.
Here, off the top of my head, is a summary of what this bill changes with respect to chief/town issued permits:
- Mandates a standard application to be used by all town licensing authorities and prohibits them from asking for more.
- Defines with considerable specificity who is a suitable person.
- Provides that an applicant may have any "lawful reason" for carrying ...
- Allows 45 days for the licensing authority to approve or deny the application.
- Allows only 5 days for an application to be deemed incomplete and mandates that it be returned with an explanation.
- If the 45 day period expires, the application may be considered denied for the sole purpose of facilitating an appeal.
- Requires that specific rationale be provided to any denied applicant.
- Provides that a denied applicant may appeal the denial in Superior Court and, if successful, recover fees and costs from the licensing authority.
- Prohibits a licensing authority from charging an extra fee beyond the $40 fee, except that they may charge the actual cost of fingerprint checking.
- Requires applications to be distributed in several ways, including the licensing authority's web site.
- Defines for how long an expired application may be renewed.
- Prohibits a fingerprint requirement upon renewal of a permit.
- Requires town issued permits to be entered into RI Criminal History (RICH) database (more on this below).
The provision I have heard objection to is that the bill would require that town issued permits be entered into the RI Criminal History (RICH) system which officers have access to. The specific objection is that this system could be hacked. This provision is actually a benefit for permit holders. Currently, RI law provides that officers may detain any person carrying a concealed handgun until the validity of their permit can be ascertained. Case law from other jurisdictions has validated similar provisions. If your permit is not in RICH, it may be difficult to validate, and you don't want that. Many police chiefs have cited the fact that permits are not in this system as an excuse for not issuing. And in fact, no law currently prohibits town issued permits from being entered into this system, so it can happen regardless.
There was also some confusion about the definition of who is suitable, however I was able to explain that and remove that concern.
Despite that single remaining objection, in general, there is broad support for this portion of the bill. It's the AG half of the bill that is causing some trouble, from our side. I had very little involvement in the AG half. Originally, it was a separate bill and the two bills were combined.
As an aside, if we're going to have CCW reform bills, I believe that they are best presented as a single bill. This prevents the GA and/or the Governor from adopting one and not the other.
Although I'm not an expert on this part of the bill - and I do plan to review it again, more carefully - I can say that the AG portion has at least one provision I oppose, several I see as so-so and several which benefit AG issued permit holders.
A few of the benefits I see are:
- A provision for an emergency renewal
- Extending the waiting period exemption to AG permit holders (in addition to town issued permit holders)
- Guaranteed renewal
The provision I don't like is a requirement that the AG require an applicant's social security number. This violates federal law and is in any case unnecessary.
So, why do I say it's a good bill? Because if you balance the good with the not-so-good, the good wins overwhelmingly. Even if someone absolutely hates the AG related changes, they can simply get a town issued permit instead. Any person may have both at the same time. Bottom line, this bill fixes every trick we have seen police chiefs use to deny permits. If this passes and becomes law, every resident will get their permit unless they are someone who should not be carrying.
If you have heard at your club or wherever that this is a "bad bill" please read it yourself and decide.
This bill has some major support in the Senate and House. It's sponsored, among others, by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and members of House leadership. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them. If you believe, as I do, that this is our best opportunity in the past 15 years to fix CCW issuance in RI, then please, get behind this bill. Tell your friends, your fellow club members, and most important, your Rep and Senator that you support this bill, that it is important to you and it is an issue upon which you vote.
If you got this far, thanks for reading my long post!
For anyone who does not know, H7390 (in the House) and it's companion bill in the Senate (don't have that number off hand) seeks to reform concealed carry permit issuance in RI. Despite what you may have been told, this is a good bill. In fact, it's a very good bill. I would know. I wrote half of it. Sadly, there is organized opposition to this bill from gun-rights activists.
Broadly speaking, there are two major portions to the bill. One that modifies RIGL 11-47-11, which is the statute controlling a police chief issued carry permit and the other half which modifies 11-47-18, which is the statute that controls Attorney General issued carry permits. My involvement was with the police chief half, as well as the addition of a definition to control who is suitable and a change to the fee.
I wrote this bill with the assistance of Jared (who posts here), three attorneys, The RIFOL group, the CRAL group, the RI Rifle and Revolver (AKA Gail and Steve Hogan) group, The RI Second Amendment Coalition (AKA the Frank and Mike group), a number of gun-rights activists in Exeter (who have some unique concerns), two former members of the Assembly and others. I personally met with each of these groups at least once and often several times. The bill underwent six revisions before every group involved found it acceptable.
Here, off the top of my head, is a summary of what this bill changes with respect to chief/town issued permits:
- Mandates a standard application to be used by all town licensing authorities and prohibits them from asking for more.
- Defines with considerable specificity who is a suitable person.
- Provides that an applicant may have any "lawful reason" for carrying ...
- Allows 45 days for the licensing authority to approve or deny the application.
- Allows only 5 days for an application to be deemed incomplete and mandates that it be returned with an explanation.
- If the 45 day period expires, the application may be considered denied for the sole purpose of facilitating an appeal.
- Requires that specific rationale be provided to any denied applicant.
- Provides that a denied applicant may appeal the denial in Superior Court and, if successful, recover fees and costs from the licensing authority.
- Prohibits a licensing authority from charging an extra fee beyond the $40 fee, except that they may charge the actual cost of fingerprint checking.
- Requires applications to be distributed in several ways, including the licensing authority's web site.
- Defines for how long an expired application may be renewed.
- Prohibits a fingerprint requirement upon renewal of a permit.
- Requires town issued permits to be entered into RI Criminal History (RICH) database (more on this below).
The provision I have heard objection to is that the bill would require that town issued permits be entered into the RI Criminal History (RICH) system which officers have access to. The specific objection is that this system could be hacked. This provision is actually a benefit for permit holders. Currently, RI law provides that officers may detain any person carrying a concealed handgun until the validity of their permit can be ascertained. Case law from other jurisdictions has validated similar provisions. If your permit is not in RICH, it may be difficult to validate, and you don't want that. Many police chiefs have cited the fact that permits are not in this system as an excuse for not issuing. And in fact, no law currently prohibits town issued permits from being entered into this system, so it can happen regardless.
There was also some confusion about the definition of who is suitable, however I was able to explain that and remove that concern.
Despite that single remaining objection, in general, there is broad support for this portion of the bill. It's the AG half of the bill that is causing some trouble, from our side. I had very little involvement in the AG half. Originally, it was a separate bill and the two bills were combined.
As an aside, if we're going to have CCW reform bills, I believe that they are best presented as a single bill. This prevents the GA and/or the Governor from adopting one and not the other.
Although I'm not an expert on this part of the bill - and I do plan to review it again, more carefully - I can say that the AG portion has at least one provision I oppose, several I see as so-so and several which benefit AG issued permit holders.
A few of the benefits I see are:
- A provision for an emergency renewal
- Extending the waiting period exemption to AG permit holders (in addition to town issued permit holders)
- Guaranteed renewal
The provision I don't like is a requirement that the AG require an applicant's social security number. This violates federal law and is in any case unnecessary.
So, why do I say it's a good bill? Because if you balance the good with the not-so-good, the good wins overwhelmingly. Even if someone absolutely hates the AG related changes, they can simply get a town issued permit instead. Any person may have both at the same time. Bottom line, this bill fixes every trick we have seen police chiefs use to deny permits. If this passes and becomes law, every resident will get their permit unless they are someone who should not be carrying.
If you have heard at your club or wherever that this is a "bad bill" please read it yourself and decide.
This bill has some major support in the Senate and House. It's sponsored, among others, by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and members of House leadership. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them. If you believe, as I do, that this is our best opportunity in the past 15 years to fix CCW issuance in RI, then please, get behind this bill. Tell your friends, your fellow club members, and most important, your Rep and Senator that you support this bill, that it is important to you and it is an issue upon which you vote.
If you got this far, thanks for reading my long post!