User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:20:10 AM EDT
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! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:20:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Read that at lunch today. Bravo Rhode Island.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:25:45 AM EDT
[#2]
That's huge! WOW, a state Supreme Court upholding the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amend. in particular.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:26:52 AM EDT
[#3]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:27:14 AM EDT
[#4]
Not just a state SC, but a liberal New England state's Supreme Court!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:27:35 AM EDT
[#5]
SWEET! GO RHODE ISLAND!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:28:07 AM EDT
[#6]
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'??  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:31:41 AM EDT
[#7]
BRAVO!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:32:06 AM EDT
[#8]
I've always liked RI. I bought my first two handguns there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:32:25 AM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:38:04 AM EDT
[#10]
This is very interesting... TAG
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:38:46 AM EDT
[#11]
Great News!!! And what do they consider "appropriate"? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:47:10 AM EDT
[#12]
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.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:47:11 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:49:35 AM EDT
[#14]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:50:54 AM EDT
[#15]
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.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:53:58 AM EDT
[#16]
....they seem to have left out Machineguns
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:55:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Rhode Island. Not a real state, "FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY!"
j/k  Neat ruling but whats it mean to the rest of the country? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:55:57 AM EDT
[#18]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:56:26 AM EDT
[#19]
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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:59:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Its a state court ruling. Does that have any meaning outside of RI?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:59:46 AM EDT
[#21]
This is big news, fellas. Why haven't we heard about this before? This article contains information atleast a month or two old.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:59:48 AM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:00:07 AM EDT
[#23]
I wonder when the ATF is going in with matches and gasoline....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:02:40 AM EDT
[#24]
I can't do any more research right now guys.
But it looks like a "duck hunters" view of the 2nd Amendment. Corey |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:38:12 AM EDT
[#25]
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???????
|
|
|
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.
