User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2022 12:22:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
ProJo (IIRC Yesterday, Thurs June 16) had an article mentioning a certain RI law firm and their plans to challenge at least some of the recently enacted legislation.
Have received some preliminary details, but will wait a bit till things firm-up. Needless to say, start saving your pennies. Will post again in this forum when concrete info is available. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2022 1:09:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JRCmx]
[#1]
With what I heard about the law (essentially banning all magazines) I don't see how it could fly. Maybe someone pulled a Galen Erso move putting that in as a fatal flaw.
Not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2022 3:03:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JRCmx: With what I heard about the law (essentially banning all magazines) I don't see how it could fly. Maybe someone pulled a Galen Erso move putting that in as a fatal flaw. Not a lawyer. I heard some reasonably knowledgable person on Matt Allen's radio program (630 AM radio, Noon to 3 PM, M-F) say that if every member of the RI "Sportsman's" clubs gave $100 each, the single receiving agent would have 7 Million dollars with which to "influence" the State Legislature. Mind you, NOT all RI gunowners, just "Sportsman's Club Members". I don't think that anythng like this has happened before. With that kind of money available, and "properly distributed", Every Single State legislator and General Officer could be "influenced" with money ;eft over for a very aggressive public relations campaign. Not to mention that Primary campaigns against the die-hard Antis could be well-funded. Our Anti-gun opponents are making use of this, what with out-of-State contributions from Anti-gun orgs. Our anti-gun opponents have been organizing, networking, and carefully donating to select State Legislators for some time. We Pro-RKBA folks have been far behind them in organization and carefully targeted political donations. IMHO, time to fight back, and sheer MONEY, placed in trustworthy hands, is the means to do it. IMHO, High time we begin to put our money where our mouths are. "Money is the "Mother's Milk" of Politics". Sad to say, but some formerly "Secure" States as regards the 2A just not be as "Secure" as some folks believe. Suggest folks believing their State is "Secure" take a very close look at the Dem/Repub voting margins. Not that one can actually trust any politician, but if it seems, over time, that the margin of Pro-2A State voters and State Reps/Senators vice the Anti-2A people is changing, start getting worried and active before it's too late. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 10:46:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Ready and willing. Our gun club message board is talking about the potential lawsuit but also working on pro-2a candidates election campaigns to go against those that voted yes for these bills.
Is there a "gofundme" style place we can start making donations now? Some folks might not be able to make one large donation down the road if things kick up but can give several sawbucks over time starting now. God willing the funds aren't needed hopefully they can be divested to pro-2a activities in RI. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 10:52:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JRCmx]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Ready and willing. Our gun club message board is talking about the potential lawsuit but also working on pro-2a candidates election campaigns to go against those that voted yes for these bills. Is there a "gofundme" style place we can start making donations now? Some folks might not be able to make one large donation down the road if things kick up but can give several sawbucks over time starting now. God willing the funds aren't needed hopefully they can be divested to pro-2a activities in RI. Don't use Go Fund Me. If they don't like what you are raising money for they can jam you up. Ask the Canadian truckers.....oh you can't, they're in jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 11:32:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JRCmx: Don't use Go Fund Me. If they don't like what you are raising money for they can jam you up. Ask the Canadian truckers.....oh you can't, they're in jail. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 5:35:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#6]
Suggest just saving your money, and awaiting events.
Likely some trustworthy law firms or other orgs will come forth. Stay tuned, and prepared to donate to trustworthy people/orgs. Suggest donating to reasonable Law firms/lawsuits is one thing, but donating to an ongoing and effective effort supporting RKBA orgs/individuals that will influence State Legislators is a very different thing. Both are "long-haul" donations, requiring consistent and significant recurring donations. Suggest we need a Single Pro-RKBA Org here in RI that will accept donations and dole them out effectively. Suggest that the 'Board of Governers" of such Org be kept small, and of well-known and personally trustworthy individuals. I suggest that at least some of the "Board of Directors" of such an Org be former politicians who know how things at the State House work. Perry Wheeler (RIP) was a Master at this. Asking some Legislators to "take a walk" during some crucial votes was a Masterly Play. Not proposing a single Org right now, just stating the obvious point that our $ contributions need to be EFFECTIVELY and Honestly spent. Multiple Orgs spending $ without co-ordination will likely be spending money at cross-purposes. Just trying to set the basics of the overall Plan. Our opponents are miles/years ahead of us. Time to get moving! Or Else! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 7:09:56 PM EDT
[#7]
In the next few days, I will send out some e-mails to trusted, longstanding, current and former RI Pols about establishing a State "Board of Directors" for a single-source of acceptance and disbursing of Pro-RKBA donations from both RI residents and out-of-State individuals and Orgs.
Seems to me that we need trustworthy people familiar with RI politics and individual politicians to make all conributions effective. I propose that such be aside from donations to any proposed lawsuits. I propose the "Board of Directors" be in charge of a long-term and fucused financial campaign to "turn" the RI Legislature away from the Progressive Anti-gunners currently afflicting us. This will require significant financial contributions from all of us. Let your contributions be guided by how much you value your Liberty. |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/22/2022 12:28:44 PM EDT
[#8]
I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor.
The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2022 1:42:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/22/2022 2:30:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Speedie]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: Completely agree in all respects. Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Absolutely. The arguments, cites, and everything else that takes hundreds of hours of research is all there. Frankly a decent paralegal could go through the filings changing references from the CA to RI statutes where needed. Raf v Neronha has a nice ring to it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2022 4:27:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: Absolutely. The arguments, cites, and everything else that takes hundreds of hours of research is all there. Frankly a decent paralegal could go through the filings changing references from the CA to RI statutes where needed. Raf v Neronha has a nice ring to it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: Originally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Absolutely. The arguments, cites, and everything else that takes hundreds of hours of research is all there. Frankly a decent paralegal could go through the filings changing references from the CA to RI statutes where needed. Raf v Neronha has a nice ring to it United we stand, divided we fall. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 12:00:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: Completely agree in all respects. Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Not a lawyer or paralegal. Just spit balling ideas. One possible beneficial idea, once it is decided to kick off use the Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge strategy in RI, it might be a good idea to consider reaching out to that lawfirm, for consultation or whatever. On the surface it might seem like a cut and paste/replace situation, but they went through the hours of work on this. Guidance on what they put in (and what they didn't put in and why) can avoid some legal pitfalls and streamline it on our end. |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 12:12:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Speedie]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Not a lawyer or paralegal. Just spit balling ideas. One possible beneficial idea, once it is decided to kick off use the Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge strategy in RI, it might be a good idea to consider reaching out to that lawfirm, for consultation or whatever. On the surface it might seem like a cut and paste/replace situation, but they went through the hours of work on this. Guidance on what they put in (and what they didn't put in and why) can avoid some legal pitfalls and streamline it on our end. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Originally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Not a lawyer or paralegal. Just spit balling ideas. One possible beneficial idea, once it is decided to kick off use the Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge strategy in RI, it might be a good idea to consider reaching out to that lawfirm, for consultation or whatever. On the surface it might seem like a cut and paste/replace situation, but they went through the hours of work on this. Guidance on what they put in (and what they didn't put in and why) can avoid some legal pitfalls and streamline it on our end. Good idea. One other thing worth noting is that 23 state attorneys general have filed a joint amicus curiae brief in Duncan. If they would get onside with supporting a challenge to RIs new statute then it would definitely add weight. NYSRPA v Bruen should be out on Monday next week, that may also offer some guideposts. ETA: Oooops, I guess NYSRPA was released today. Off to read it. Further ETA: From the majority opinion: The government will have to show, Thomas says, that a gun regulation "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Any honest judge (yes, I know) cannot possibly take that and rule that a mag capacity ban is constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 12:49:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Not a lawyer or paralegal. Just spit balling ideas. One possible beneficial idea, once it is decided to kick off use the Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge strategy in RI, it might be a good idea to consider reaching out to that lawfirm, for consultation or whatever. On the surface it might seem like a cut and paste/replace situation, but they went through the hours of work on this. Guidance on what they put in (and what they didn't put in and why) can avoid some legal pitfalls and streamline it on our end. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Originally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: I hope that we don't end up in a situation where multiple individuals and orgs start filing separate lawsuits. There needs to be one concerted effort, and it is absolutely vital that it uses Duncan v Bonta (pending before SCOTUS) as a template. The arguments therein are by far the best chance for success. Hell, even CA had to go all the way to an en banc hearing of the 9th Circus before they got a friendly enough court to rule in their favor. The CA law that banned possession of existing mags that were previously grandfathered (the law challenged in Duncan v Bonta) is currently subject to a court-mandated stay and has not gone into effect. AG Neronha conveniently forgot to mention that in his widely disseminated letter to House Judiciary Chair Craven. Must have completely slipped his mind Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge to RI Mag Ban already written; just change a very few particulars and file it in Court. People in CA who did the research on the lawsuit likely saved folks in RI tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Strongly we here make good use of it. Not a Lawyer, but anyone or any firm claiming they need to start from scratch is probably looking for money. No need to start from scratch whatsoever. Not a lawyer or paralegal. Just spit balling ideas. One possible beneficial idea, once it is decided to kick off use the Duncan v. Bonta (CA) challenge strategy in RI, it might be a good idea to consider reaching out to that lawfirm, for consultation or whatever. On the surface it might seem like a cut and paste/replace situation, but they went through the hours of work on this. Guidance on what they put in (and what they didn't put in and why) can avoid some legal pitfalls and streamline it on our end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 3:57:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Big Bear filed lawsuit on mag cap law today.
I don't know if this was part of the initial law firm preparing to file suit or another separate group, but like one poster said before it would benefit us all if we could address this and pool resources/funds vs diluting it amongst several lawsuits https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/courts/2022/06/24/ri-high-capacity-magazines-firearms-ban-federal-court-challenge/7723457001/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 4:28:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Big Bear filed lawsuit on mag cap law today. I don't know if this was part of the initial law firm preparing to file suit or another separate group, but like one poster said before it would benefit us all if we could address this and pool resources/funds vs diluting it amongst several lawsuits https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/courts/2022/06/24/ri-high-capacity-magazines-firearms-ban-federal-court-challenge/7723457001/ Big Bear Web Site |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 7:22:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Big Bear filed lawsuit on mag cap law today. I don't know if this was part of the initial law firm preparing to file suit or another separate group, but like one poster said before it would benefit us all if we could address this and pool resources/funds vs diluting it amongst several lawsuits https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/courts/2022/06/24/ri-high-capacity-magazines-firearms-ban-federal-court-challenge/7723457001/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2022 11:11:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: I'll reserve judgement until I see the complaint (and IANAL) but I find it hard to believe that they could have fully incorporated NYSRPA v Bruen into it less than 24 hours after the ruling came down. If this is the same group that sent an open letter to the House before passage of the bill, their argument was more against the lack of grandfathering via the takings clause than a Duncan v Bonta style "Heller -> McDonald -> Caetano say you can't do this, period" version. I hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 11:34:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Speedie]
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 11:59:12 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: Link to the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.53873/gov.uscourts.rid.53873.1.0.pdf I am very glad that the Plaintiffs mentioned that the Mag Ban Law is very vague in describing the nature of "permanent" modifications to existing Standard Capacity magazines, and therefore the Law is "Void for Vagueness" for that reason alone. Also, I expect the lawsuit to be amended due to recent Bruen SCOTUS decision. |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 12:23:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: I am very glad that the Plaintiffs mentioned that the Mag Ban Law is very vague in describing the nature of "permanent" modifications to existing Standard Capacity magazines, and therefore the Law is "Void for Vagueness" for that reason alone. Also, I expect the lawsuit to be amended due to recent Bruen SCOTUS decision. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By Speedie: Link to the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.53873/gov.uscourts.rid.53873.1.0.pdf I am very glad that the Plaintiffs mentioned that the Mag Ban Law is very vague in describing the nature of "permanent" modifications to existing Standard Capacity magazines, and therefore the Law is "Void for Vagueness" for that reason alone. Also, I expect the lawsuit to be amended due to recent Bruen SCOTUS decision. Chalk me up as not a fan. It seems hasty and nowhere near as potent as it should have been. Hopefully it gets amended, or a firm more well versed in 2A litigation gets involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 12:45:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: It does make a couple of references to Bruen. I'll be honest and say (again IANAL) that it seems to be weak in terms of the arguments set forth in Duncan v Bonta. They had a template and didn't use it, in fact they only briefly mentioned Caetano in passing. Also the law firm representing the plaintiffs specializes in construction litigation, real estate & land use, and business & commercial litigation, which makes sense of there being so much emphasis on the 5th Amendment / no grandfathering argument rather than a straight "Heller -> McDonald -> Caetano -> Bruen say you can't do this, period" argument. Chalk me up as not a fan. It seems hasty and nowhere near as potent as it should have been. Hopefully it gets amended, or a firm more well versed in 2A litigation gets involved. I agree, the firms area of law does worry me. I heard they will get help and work with other law firms.. Given the fact that if this law stands it could be used in other states......I am going to assume the NRA ILA and others will be helping out. Hopefully SCOTUS takes up the CA ban soon |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2022 10:49:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BriansM4: I agree, the firms area of law does worry me. I heard they will get help and work with other law firms.. Given the fact that if this law stands it could be used in other states......I am going to assume the NRA ILA and others will be helping out. Hopefully SCOTUS takes up the CA ban soon |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 9:33:34 AM EDT
[#24]
The law firm handling the RI Mag Ban Law needs to get in touch with the Firearms Policy Coalition, at a minimum. Hopefully they have already done so; if anyone has a way to contact them, suggest you pass along the suggestion and the link. FPC has likely forgotten more about "gun rights lawsuits" than most others know.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQwal7KaCKPDWarooZ3p4Kw |
|
|
|
RI, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 10:54:05 AM EDT
[#25]
The various AWB, magazine ban, and carry cases were all GVRd!! This means that cert was granted, the lower court rulings upholding them were vacated, and they were remanded back to those courts for rulings consistent with Bruen. Huge, giant win!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 6:25:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Speedie: The various AWB, magazine ban, and carry cases were all GVRd!! This means that cert was granted, the lower court rulings upholding them were vacated, and they were remanded back to those courts for rulings consistent with Bruen. Huge, giant win!! So if the those courts don't follow the most recent decision, those cases will be before the court next session? If so thats good news for us here |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2022 7:54:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#27]
Not a Lawyer.
I reckon SCOTUS reversed previous Appllate court decisions in order for the Appellate /courts to re-consider their previous decisions given NEW and very explicit SCOTUS decisions. Not having a crystal Ball, and just guessing, the down-stream Courts will try to make everything tough for firearms owners. The Fight has just started. Save your money and donate it to carefully selected groups. NOT a THING so Far as reversing the RI Mag Ban Bill. As of this moment, STILL in effect. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2022 11:37:27 AM EDT
[#28]
 Attached File Attached FileJust messaged Big Bear, the plaintiff that filed suit ands is attempting to overturn the recently passed laws. They have set up a crowdfunding link and I confirmed this is the correct link through them directly: https://www.givesendgo.com/ri2alawsuit |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2022 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Anybody in the forum have some pull with the mods or Stryker to see about getting this possibly pinned on the Gen Discussion forum?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 8:16:12 AM EDT
[#30]
Sent to Striker this AM:
"RI Legislature just passed some Bills, one of which is a "High Capacity" Magazine Ban-- with NO Grandfathering provision. A Lawsuit has been brought against it, and there is need for funding. Details in this thread in RI HTF: https://www.ar15.com/forums/hometown/Stay-Tuned-For-Possible-Updates-Regarding-Lawsuits-Concerning-Recently-Enacted-RI-Laws/54-662604/&page=1&anc=bottom#bottom The thread contains a direct link to the funding platform suggested by one of the Plaintiffs--scroll down. Would you please review it, and if it "passes muster" would you allow someone (not me because I'm still restricted from GD) to post the details in GD and other places? If so, please respond in the linked thread with your posting suggestions." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 10:38:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Striker]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Anybody in the forum have some pull with the mods or Stryker to see about getting this possibly pinned on the Gen Discussion forum?  I would start a thread in gd with a link to this thread and a link to the big bear fund raiser. tacking it will pretty much guarantee it will get ignored... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 12:03:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Striker: I can not be bribed..but I'll do questionable things for a Klondike bar. I would start a thread in gd with a link to this thread and a link to the big bear fund raiser. tacking it will pretty much guarantee it will get ignored... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Striker: Originally Posted By Hamel: Anybody in the forum have some pull with the mods or Stryker to see about getting this possibly pinned on the Gen Discussion forum? I would start a thread in gd with a link to this thread and a link to the big bear fund raiser. tacking it will pretty much guarantee it will get ignored... Someone besides myself will need to make the post in GD; sorry, can't discuss. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 4:59:43 PM EDT
[#33]
If no one has done so already I will post up on GD
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 5:06:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: If no one has done so already I will post up on GD |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2022 9:18:27 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2022 9:42:15 AM EDT
[#36]
Tough to believe that they have only raised 10% of the goal, come on folks, spread the word, fight back, these asshat politicians are not going to stop here.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2022 1:35:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hamel: Done and Done. Fingers crossed https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/STRIKER-APPROVED-FUNDRAISER-Lawsuit-to-challenge-RI-s-Recently-Passed-Gun-Laws-and-Magazine-Ban-/5-2567690/ Suggest you and others "bump" the thread in GD periodically. I can't do it, so suggest bumping once a day or so would be tolerated. Also STRONGLY suggest "Sharing" the link on Social Media Platforms; the site makes it easy to do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2022 4:41:47 PM EDT
[#38]
bump for the second shift
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2022 4:30:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Any news? It seems like things have gone quiet.....and that worries me. Wheres the challenge for that local firm...and wheres the NRA ILA?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 9:27:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#40]
I expect that the PTB in the State, and especially in the Courts will do their best to slow-walk this lawsuit; that was always expected.
The Courts move slowly unless there are extreme circumstances present, such as mobs outside the Courthouse. That's obviously not happening, so suggest being patient. if you're hoping that this lawsuit will bring some sort of relief before the end of the "Grace Period", I wouldn't count on it. I >>believe<< the Grace Period ends on Sunday, December 18, 2022, which is 180 days from date of signing, on June 21, 2022. What the parties bringing this lawsuit really, really, need to do is get in touch with the Firearms Policy Coalition. The FPC has been winning lawsuits in a steady stream of late. Hopefully they have done so already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 7:36:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Seems odd that nothing seems to be happening? no class action suit to sign on to, no calls for funds other than 1 gun shop? D+L along other shops not working together or asking for our help? liberals don't play nice , conservatives are too nice.
|
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 9/22/2022 2:48:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Anything happening on the legal front post Bruen?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2022 4:15:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: raf]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: Anything happening on the legal front post Bruen? In short, if one is hoping for a "Stay" of enacted RI Law prohibiting mags in excess of 10 Rd capacity, I think that such people don't understand the glacial slowness of the Court system. I would be delighted to be wrong, but I would make reasonable plans for either outcome. No doubt that the people bringing the Lawsuit would very much appreciate your $ donations. Linked above. I Donated, and I hope many others do so. ETA, will ask some "informed" lawyer-type sources within the RI General Assembly about this specific topic. Stay tuned. Suggest you all adopt a plan to accommodate your potentially illegal magazines. I don't like it, You don't like it. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 9/23/2022 5:46:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Toker_]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: ETA, will ask some "informed" lawyer-type sources within the RI General Assembly about this specific topic. Stay tuned. Suggest you all adopt a plan to accommodate your potentially illegal magazines. I don't like it, You don't like it. It is what it is. I'm a CT resident, so RI's laws don't directly affect me. We already have our garbage capacity laws, but with grandfathering for possession. My interest was more as a neighboring state since I was think about non-resident permits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2022 7:59:34 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: I'm a CT resident, so RI's laws don't directly affect me. We already have our garbage capacity laws, but with grandfathering for possession. My interest was more as a neighboring state since I was think about non-resident permits. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: Originally Posted By raf: ETA, will ask some "informed" lawyer-type sources within the RI General Assembly about this specific topic. Stay tuned. Suggest you all adopt a plan to accommodate your potentially illegal magazines. I don't like it, You don't like it. It is what it is. I'm a CT resident, so RI's laws don't directly affect me. We already have our garbage capacity laws, but with grandfathering for possession. My interest was more as a neighboring state since I was think about non-resident permits. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 9/25/2022 9:26:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Toker_]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf: What sort of non-resident "Permits" are you concerned about? Since none of the states bordering CT (and including CT) honor each other's pistol permits, I have to apply for non-resident pistol permits. Looks like RI may not be difficult since it looks like the only requirement is a permit from another state. But I want to make sure if I get the permit, I understand what the laws are around carrying. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
