Federal Judge Rejects Challenge to Rhode Island’s Gun Permit System

A federal judge has rejected a bid to have Rhode Island’s gun permitting scheme declared unconstitutional.

Rhode Island’s system “is within the Nation’s historical tradition of regulation,” U.S. District Judge William Smith said in an Aug. 1 decision.

Rhode Island law lets the state’s attorney general, as well as municipal officials, hand out permits to people to carry firearms in a concealed fashion. The attorney general may issue a permit if an applicant provides “a proper showing of need,” according to the law.

Local officials shall issue a permit “if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed,” it states.

Michael O’Neil and other Rhode Island residents sued the state over the scheme, arguing it infringes on their rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

They were denied permits, or permit renewals, because the attorney general determined they had not demonstrated that they needed them, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 known as Bruen, in which justices said that Americans not only have the right to keep firearms in their homes, but also have the right to carry handguns outside their homes for self-defense.

The court at the time also said government officials defending restrictions on guns “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In the ruling, justices struck down New York state’s system for permits to carry guns.

“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Rhode Island officials said their permit scheme fell within the nation’s gun regulation tradition, and Smith, the district judge, agreed.

“Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary is foreclosed by Bruen itself,” Smith wrote.

“There, the Supreme Court concluded that ‘the historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation.’ And it drew that conclusion, in part, from its finding that historically, ‘States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.’ The Firearms Act, through its permitting structure, does just this, albeit in reverse: it regulates Plaintiffs’ manner of public carry in that it limits their right to open carry but leaves unaffected their right to concealed carry.”

Frank Saccoccio, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told news outlets in a statement that the decision conflicted with Bruen and that they would be appealing.

Timothy Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, told outlets in a statement that the ruling reaffirmed “the constitutionality of Rhode Island’s permitting system for the public carry of handguns.”