Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:20:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 9:25:13 AM EST by Wobblin-Goblin]
Here's the headline:

"R.I. Supreme Court Recognizes Second Amendment As Individual Right"

"Recognizing the 'militia' as being 'composed of individuals,' it noted that 'to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the state... . The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property'"

Wow!
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:20:55 AM EST
Read that at lunch today. Bravo Rhode Island.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:25:45 AM EST
That's huge! WOW, a state Supreme Court upholding the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amend. in particular.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:26:52 AM EST
But will it pan out as something good, or just words.

It sound like it is saying that any R.I. resident can legally purchase a firearm. As I understand it, in R.I. you need a permit that is difficult to get.

Can anyone from R.I. chime in with the requirements?

ktm500
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:27:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By POWER03:
That's huge! WOW, a state Supreme Court upholding the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amend. in particular.



Not just a state SC, but a liberal New England state's Supreme Court!!!
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:27:35 AM EST
SWEET! GO RHODE ISLAND!!!


Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:28:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 9:29:13 AM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Here's the headline:

"R.I. Supreme Court Recognizes Second Amendment As Individual Right"

"Recognizing the 'militia' as being 'composed of individuals,' it noted that 'to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the state... . The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property'"

Wow!

"places of employment"!??

Double-WOW!

So the R.I. Supreme court is hinting at abolishing all employer-mandated antigun-laws?!

Is this a joke? Are we on 'Candid Camera'??
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:31:41 AM EST
BRAVO!

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:32:06 AM EST
I've always liked RI. I bought my first two handguns there.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:32:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:38:04 AM EST
This is very interesting... TAG
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:38:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Here's the headline:

"R.I. Supreme Court Recognizes Second Amendment As Individual Right"

"Recognizing the 'militia' as being 'composed of individuals,' it noted that 'to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the state... . The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property'"

Wow!



Great News!!! And what do they consider "appropriate"?
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:47:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By shootemup:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Here's the headline:

"R.I. Supreme Court Recognizes Second Amendment As Individual Right"

"Recognizing the 'militia' as being 'composed of individuals,' it noted that 'to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the state... . The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property'"

Wow!




Great News!!! And what do they consider "appropriate"?



In the context of the sentence it sound like firearms "appropriate" for a militia. If individuals don't have the appropriate firearms then they will become a toothless tiger.

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:47:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By ktm500:
But will it pan out as something good, or just words.

It sound like it is saying that any R.I. resident can legally purchase a firearm. As I understand it, in R.I. you need a permit that is difficult to get.

Can anyone from R.I. chime in with the requirements?

ktm500



CCW almost impossible to get, AFAIK. (Easier to get in MA, oddly enough) Any other kind of handgun or long arm, no firearm lic. needed. Not sure about Class 3 or DD, though.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:49:35 AM EST

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:50:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 9:56:18 AM EST by Corey]

Originally Posted By shootemup:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Here's the headline:

"R.I. Supreme Court Recognizes Second Amendment As Individual Right"

"Recognizing the 'militia' as being 'composed of individuals,' it noted that 'to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the state... . The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property'"

Wow!


Great News!!! And what do they consider "appropriate"?



In the context, it sounds like they are saying "appropriate" as in serious hardware, versus a single barrel shotgun and .22 caliber revolver. They are stating "appropriate arms" in the context of defending the state.

But I haven't read the opinion. I'm off to do that right now. But it is an outstanding quote. I only wish they would have went as far as saying citizens had a right to own semiauto "assault rifles." That might really put a damper on any future federal ban attempts....


EDITED to get my text out of the quotes....
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:53:58 AM EST
....they seem to have left out Machineguns
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:55:51 AM EST
Rhode Island. Not a real state, "FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY!"


j/k

Neat ruling but whats it mean to the rest of the country?
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:55:57 AM EST
Sounds to me like a US v Miller style decision...

'Appropriate' -> appropriate to defense of the state...

Which is basically all the stuff the antis want to ban...
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:56:26 AM EST
You gotta understand....

Rhode Island is run by the mafia.

THEY ALREADY ALL GOT MACHINE GUNS.

They just don't want to get prosecuted under state firearms laws anymore.





Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:59:23 AM EST
Its a state court ruling. Does that have any meaning outside of RI?
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:59:46 AM EST
This is big news, fellas. Why haven't we heard about this before? This article contains information atleast a month or two old.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:59:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 10:03:39 AM EST by Corey]

It bears repeating that pistols and revolvers are not sawed-off shotguns or assault rifles, or
other types of weaponry that more readily lend themselves to criminal activity and, therefore, to
regulation banning their possession. See, e.g., Carson v. State, 247 S.E.2d 68, 73 (Ga. 1978);



Looks like they are specifically excluding our beloved evil black rifle.



EDITED to add that the above is a quote out of the case we're all talking about. I haven't had a chance to look at Carson v. State yet, but I'll bet it's not good.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:00:07 AM EST
I wonder when the ATF is going in with matches and gasoline....
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:02:40 AM EST
I can't do any more research right now guys.

But it looks like a "duck hunters" view of the 2nd Amendment.

Corey
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:38:12 AM EST
But couldn't a rifle be a machine gun? An M14 is a rifle and a machine gun isn't it? It did not state you you could NOT own a machine gun right???????

Top Top