Federal Judge Upholds Rhode Island Gun Permit System
A federal judge has decided to maintain Rhode Island’s gun permit system, which mandates that residents show a “need” to openly carry firearms. He determined that this law does not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of individuals.
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge William Smith on Friday, who dismissed a lawsuit brought by a group of gun owners, led by Michael O’Neil from the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition.
O’Neil has contended that the requirement for gun owners to prove a “proper showing of need” to carry openly violates their Constitutional rights. Members of the coalition highlighted that in 2021, their requests for unrestricted firearm permits—which would allow both concealed and open carry—were all denied by the attorney general’s office.
O’Neil specifically said he was turned down for an open carry license despite fulfilling all stipulated criteria. The office of Attorney General Peter Neronha responded by stating that O’Neil already had a restricted concealed carry permit, so he hadn’t shown a valid need for the open carry license.
“Under Rhode Island law, permits of this nature are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one,” Judge Smith stated in his ruling.
The relevant statute obligates local officials to supply concealed carry permits to those who qualify. Yet, the attorney general is not obligated to issue open carry permits, even if applicants can provide a “proper showing of need.”
“Considering that, in Rhode Island, an unrestricted license is a privilege and not a right, these interpretive safeguards clarify the statute and do not render the law vague,” Smith further remarked.
The plaintiffs referred to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that nullified a New York law limiting residents’ access to open carry permits. However, Judge Smith argued that the Supreme Court did not mandate that the Second Amendment entails a right to open carry, emphasizing that Rhode Island’s regulations are consistent with historical norms of gun regulation in the country.
Following the ruling, the attorney for the gun advocates expressed plans to appeal, as he believes the judgment does not align with the Supreme Court’s stance.
