zinn
2022-12-15 08:37:47 UTC
PROVIDENCE As the deadline approaches for gun owners to give up their
high-capacity firearm magazines or face legal consequences, a federal
judge on Wednesday upheld a newly enacted state law banning magazines that
carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a
request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a
preliminary injunction blocking the law, which on Sunday will make
possession of a large-capacity gun magazine a felony in Rhode Island.
McConnell found that the plaintiffs Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply;
three Rhode Island residents Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan
Hirons; and, a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette,
had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law was
allowed to take effect, and that allowing its enforcement was in the
public's interest.
Rhode Island politics:RI gun-control lobby buoyed by election wins
"It is not entirely accurate to say that the victims of mass shootings are
chosen randomly. True, they are random in that their identities are
usually not known to the shooter, and it appears to matter not to the
shooter whether the next one killed is a particular person or the woman
standing next to him. But in actuality, victims have not been chosen
randomly. They have been chosen because they are attending a synagogue in
Pittsburgh or church in Sutherland Spring. Or because they are sitting in
a school classroom in Newtown or a high school classroom in Parkland. Or
because they were at a concert in Las Vegas or a nightclub in Orlando,"
McConnell said. "They were not chosen because of anything they did, but
because of what they represented to a particular person with a gun and a
lot of ammunition."
"Consistent with its obligation to protect public safety, but consonant
with its fealty to the Constitution, the Rhode Island General Assembly has
responded with, among other firearms regulations, the [large capacity
magazine] Ban. It is inevitable that Rhode Island will one day be the
scene of a mass shooting. The LCM Ban is a small but measured attempt to
mitigate the potential loss of life by regulating an instrument associated
with mass slaughter," the judge wrote.
The ruling came as Wednesday marked 10 years since a gunman shot and
killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Twenty of those killed were children between 6 and 7 years old.
Sandy Hook to Uvalde: Congress has proposed many gun control laws. Only
one has passed.
Combatting gun violence:RI police find guns and people who shoot them
with ballistics 'fingerprinting' machine
The plaintiffs, he said, had not shown that the magazines represented
"arms" as seen in the Second Amendment, nor had they presented credible
evidence establishing them as a weapon of self-defense.
The Second Amendment protects the right to people to "keep and bear arms,"
and at its core the right to self-defense, McConnell observed.
The ban was a reasonable and measured approach to restricting large-
capacity magazines, which in practice easily convert handguns into semi-
automatic weapons capable of rapid fire, he said.
He accepted the opinion of an expert for the state that throughout history
"high capacity firearms ... were understood to be weapons of war or anti-
insurrection, not weapons of individual self defense."
McConnell, likewise, rejected arguments that the law represented an
unconstitutional "taking" without just compensation.
In ruling, the judge cited doctrine establishing that a regulatory
restriction that is a valid exercise of police powers does not entitle a
property owner to compensation, meaning that the policy is in the public
interest, is reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose and is not overly
burdensome. The prohibition, he said, was a reasonable response to the
public safety interests of the state.
He relied, in part, on testimony from another state witness, Dr. Megan
Ranney, an expert in emergency room medicine with a focus on the public
health fallout from gun violence. Ranney produced evidence that the
ability to spray bullets results in more injuries, often with multiple
wounds, making treatment more complex and victims more numerous.
McConnell found that data produced by Ranney, though sparse, showed "a
connection between employment of LCMs and increased injuries, both in
number and seriousness."
The judge determined that any burden placed on owners to sell, forfeit or
modify their magazines under the law was "minor."
"If this is even a burden at all, it pales in comparison to the
substantial nature of the public safety interest at stake," McConnell
said.
State lawmakers hail ruling
State leaders on Wednesday praised McConnell's 59-page opinion issued
Wednesday afternoon.
The legislation placing restrictions on high capacity magazines was
carefully developed and thoroughly reviewed, and it was enacted after
lengthy public testimony in both the Senate and the House Judiciary
Committees," Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio and House Speaker K.
Joseph Shekarchi said in an email. "We firmly believed that the
restrictions are necessary, reasonable and in the best interests of public
safety, and that they would be upheld in a court of law, just as similar
provisions in other states have been upheld. We are grateful to Chief
Judge John McConnell for his decision today.
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who spoke in support of the gun
restrictions at the State House, said Judge McConnell made the right call.
"We are pleased with the Courts decision and are confident it is the
correct ruling. We are still reviewing the decision and expect we will
have additional comment very soon," Brian Hodge, spokesman for the
attorney general's office, said in a statement.
Gun control laws in Rhode Island
State lawmakers passed three gun-control bills including one that will
prohibit the possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of
ammunition last session with the backing of Neronha and gun-safety
advocates.
Days after Gov. Dan McKee signed the measures into law, the gun owners
challenged the high-capacity magazine ban in federal court, arguing that
it violated their Second Amendment rights and represented an
unconstitutional "taking" of their property without just compensation.
It's a wonderful life: Ohio woman returns to thank two Rhode Island men
who saved her life 49 years ago
What is the punishment for having a high-capacity magazine in RI?
Under the law, owners of high-capacity magazines had 180 days to modify
the banned components, surrender them to police or transfer them to people
in states where such magazines are legal.
Anyone still in possession of an outlawed magazine after the grace period
could face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to $5,000.
Gun rights advocates decry decision
Reaction to the court decision was swift from some gun-rights advocates.
We are very disappointed, because youre taking peoples property,
essentially, said Brenda Jacob, the state lobbyist for the Rhode Island
Revolver Association, which represents gun club members around the state.
While the judge ruled that the magazines did not meet the definition of
arms as referred to in the Second Amendment, Jacob said the bullet-
loading devices were an integral component to the operation of many
firearms.
Its the equivalent, she said, of what would happen if you banned
cellphone chargers. They are part of the phone, and if you banned the
chargers you would essentially be banning the phones.
Its a terrible thing, she said. We were hoping that the judge would
make an informed decision.
Jacob said most of the gun owners she knew had been awaiting the judges
decision before deciding what to do with their magazines that hold more
than 10 rounds.
What happens now? Im not going to speak for the thousands of gun owners
out there.
One owner of high-capacity magazines, Burrillville Town Council President
Donald Fox, said Wednesday he plans to defy the law by keeping his
magazines and encouraged all other law-abiding magazine owners to do the
same.
If the police want to come banging down my door to confiscate his
magazines they can, he said. But I recommend all Rhode Islanders not give
up their high-capacity magazines.
Im very disappointed, he said. Its again one of these feel-good laws
that really dont make anybody safer and only make law-abiding citizens
into felons.
Fox said he hopes the issue would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where he
said he was confident it would be found unconstitutional.
It was not immediately clear Wednesday if the plaintiffs would appeal.
Reporters Katherine Gregg and Tom Mooney contributed to this story.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI's high-
capacity gun magazine bans stands after judge's ruling
Comments:
Mark
10 hours ago
It's just going to go to the Supreme Court and be struck down. Getting
tired of states trying to circumvent the Second Amendment for a temporary
ban when they know it's not going to hold up.
Also, mass shooters are simply going to use the larger-capacity magazines,
either by not forfeiting them or bringing them from out-of-state. They're
easy to conceal, lightweight and portable.
just a guy
10 hours ago
So someone who is not a criminal, never has been a criminal, who lawfully
purchased something he was legally allowed to possess will become a
criminal if they don't give up that which they legally purchased and
owned? And this is somehow going to make people safer from someone who
isn't concerned with the law to begin with? Seems like a common sense law
(sarcasm intended). So here is an idea. People drink to much and get into
cars and drive. Lets pass a law that requires people to turn in all their
alcohol and ban any further sales as well as banning all vehicles so that
they can't drive drunk. That way the less than 1% of people who might
drive drunk can't. Logical right. Considering way less than 1% of people
who own magazines with capacities over 10 rounds will commit a crime with
them the logic is the same. The only difference is that only a small
percentage of the population own these weapons while the majority of the
population enjoys alcohol. So banning guns and magazines won't hurt your
reelection chances like prohibition will.
Harold
10 hours ago
I suspect there will be a large increase in "felons" in Rhode Island. Then
the law will be stricken down and they will no longer be felons. If
prosecuted in the meantime the victims of illegal prosecution will start
the civil lawsuits. Rhode Island may have to spend a great deal of money
before this is over.
LR
11 hours ago
I have a proposal: When legislators propose unConstitutional laws, they
are barred from office until they take remedial classes on the
Constitution. If they then again propose unConstitutional laws, they are
banned from public office forever.
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-upholds-rhode-islands-high-191711360.html
high-capacity firearm magazines or face legal consequences, a federal
judge on Wednesday upheld a newly enacted state law banning magazines that
carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a
request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a
preliminary injunction blocking the law, which on Sunday will make
possession of a large-capacity gun magazine a felony in Rhode Island.
McConnell found that the plaintiffs Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply;
three Rhode Island residents Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan
Hirons; and, a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette,
had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law was
allowed to take effect, and that allowing its enforcement was in the
public's interest.
Rhode Island politics:RI gun-control lobby buoyed by election wins
"It is not entirely accurate to say that the victims of mass shootings are
chosen randomly. True, they are random in that their identities are
usually not known to the shooter, and it appears to matter not to the
shooter whether the next one killed is a particular person or the woman
standing next to him. But in actuality, victims have not been chosen
randomly. They have been chosen because they are attending a synagogue in
Pittsburgh or church in Sutherland Spring. Or because they are sitting in
a school classroom in Newtown or a high school classroom in Parkland. Or
because they were at a concert in Las Vegas or a nightclub in Orlando,"
McConnell said. "They were not chosen because of anything they did, but
because of what they represented to a particular person with a gun and a
lot of ammunition."
"Consistent with its obligation to protect public safety, but consonant
with its fealty to the Constitution, the Rhode Island General Assembly has
responded with, among other firearms regulations, the [large capacity
magazine] Ban. It is inevitable that Rhode Island will one day be the
scene of a mass shooting. The LCM Ban is a small but measured attempt to
mitigate the potential loss of life by regulating an instrument associated
with mass slaughter," the judge wrote.
The ruling came as Wednesday marked 10 years since a gunman shot and
killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Twenty of those killed were children between 6 and 7 years old.
Sandy Hook to Uvalde: Congress has proposed many gun control laws. Only
one has passed.
Combatting gun violence:RI police find guns and people who shoot them
with ballistics 'fingerprinting' machine
The plaintiffs, he said, had not shown that the magazines represented
"arms" as seen in the Second Amendment, nor had they presented credible
evidence establishing them as a weapon of self-defense.
The Second Amendment protects the right to people to "keep and bear arms,"
and at its core the right to self-defense, McConnell observed.
The ban was a reasonable and measured approach to restricting large-
capacity magazines, which in practice easily convert handguns into semi-
automatic weapons capable of rapid fire, he said.
He accepted the opinion of an expert for the state that throughout history
"high capacity firearms ... were understood to be weapons of war or anti-
insurrection, not weapons of individual self defense."
McConnell, likewise, rejected arguments that the law represented an
unconstitutional "taking" without just compensation.
In ruling, the judge cited doctrine establishing that a regulatory
restriction that is a valid exercise of police powers does not entitle a
property owner to compensation, meaning that the policy is in the public
interest, is reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose and is not overly
burdensome. The prohibition, he said, was a reasonable response to the
public safety interests of the state.
He relied, in part, on testimony from another state witness, Dr. Megan
Ranney, an expert in emergency room medicine with a focus on the public
health fallout from gun violence. Ranney produced evidence that the
ability to spray bullets results in more injuries, often with multiple
wounds, making treatment more complex and victims more numerous.
McConnell found that data produced by Ranney, though sparse, showed "a
connection between employment of LCMs and increased injuries, both in
number and seriousness."
The judge determined that any burden placed on owners to sell, forfeit or
modify their magazines under the law was "minor."
"If this is even a burden at all, it pales in comparison to the
substantial nature of the public safety interest at stake," McConnell
said.
State lawmakers hail ruling
State leaders on Wednesday praised McConnell's 59-page opinion issued
Wednesday afternoon.
The legislation placing restrictions on high capacity magazines was
carefully developed and thoroughly reviewed, and it was enacted after
lengthy public testimony in both the Senate and the House Judiciary
Committees," Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio and House Speaker K.
Joseph Shekarchi said in an email. "We firmly believed that the
restrictions are necessary, reasonable and in the best interests of public
safety, and that they would be upheld in a court of law, just as similar
provisions in other states have been upheld. We are grateful to Chief
Judge John McConnell for his decision today.
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who spoke in support of the gun
restrictions at the State House, said Judge McConnell made the right call.
"We are pleased with the Courts decision and are confident it is the
correct ruling. We are still reviewing the decision and expect we will
have additional comment very soon," Brian Hodge, spokesman for the
attorney general's office, said in a statement.
Gun control laws in Rhode Island
State lawmakers passed three gun-control bills including one that will
prohibit the possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of
ammunition last session with the backing of Neronha and gun-safety
advocates.
Days after Gov. Dan McKee signed the measures into law, the gun owners
challenged the high-capacity magazine ban in federal court, arguing that
it violated their Second Amendment rights and represented an
unconstitutional "taking" of their property without just compensation.
It's a wonderful life: Ohio woman returns to thank two Rhode Island men
who saved her life 49 years ago
What is the punishment for having a high-capacity magazine in RI?
Under the law, owners of high-capacity magazines had 180 days to modify
the banned components, surrender them to police or transfer them to people
in states where such magazines are legal.
Anyone still in possession of an outlawed magazine after the grace period
could face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to $5,000.
Gun rights advocates decry decision
Reaction to the court decision was swift from some gun-rights advocates.
We are very disappointed, because youre taking peoples property,
essentially, said Brenda Jacob, the state lobbyist for the Rhode Island
Revolver Association, which represents gun club members around the state.
While the judge ruled that the magazines did not meet the definition of
arms as referred to in the Second Amendment, Jacob said the bullet-
loading devices were an integral component to the operation of many
firearms.
Its the equivalent, she said, of what would happen if you banned
cellphone chargers. They are part of the phone, and if you banned the
chargers you would essentially be banning the phones.
Its a terrible thing, she said. We were hoping that the judge would
make an informed decision.
Jacob said most of the gun owners she knew had been awaiting the judges
decision before deciding what to do with their magazines that hold more
than 10 rounds.
What happens now? Im not going to speak for the thousands of gun owners
out there.
One owner of high-capacity magazines, Burrillville Town Council President
Donald Fox, said Wednesday he plans to defy the law by keeping his
magazines and encouraged all other law-abiding magazine owners to do the
same.
If the police want to come banging down my door to confiscate his
magazines they can, he said. But I recommend all Rhode Islanders not give
up their high-capacity magazines.
Im very disappointed, he said. Its again one of these feel-good laws
that really dont make anybody safer and only make law-abiding citizens
into felons.
Fox said he hopes the issue would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where he
said he was confident it would be found unconstitutional.
It was not immediately clear Wednesday if the plaintiffs would appeal.
Reporters Katherine Gregg and Tom Mooney contributed to this story.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI's high-
capacity gun magazine bans stands after judge's ruling
Comments:
Mark
10 hours ago
It's just going to go to the Supreme Court and be struck down. Getting
tired of states trying to circumvent the Second Amendment for a temporary
ban when they know it's not going to hold up.
Also, mass shooters are simply going to use the larger-capacity magazines,
either by not forfeiting them or bringing them from out-of-state. They're
easy to conceal, lightweight and portable.
just a guy
10 hours ago
So someone who is not a criminal, never has been a criminal, who lawfully
purchased something he was legally allowed to possess will become a
criminal if they don't give up that which they legally purchased and
owned? And this is somehow going to make people safer from someone who
isn't concerned with the law to begin with? Seems like a common sense law
(sarcasm intended). So here is an idea. People drink to much and get into
cars and drive. Lets pass a law that requires people to turn in all their
alcohol and ban any further sales as well as banning all vehicles so that
they can't drive drunk. That way the less than 1% of people who might
drive drunk can't. Logical right. Considering way less than 1% of people
who own magazines with capacities over 10 rounds will commit a crime with
them the logic is the same. The only difference is that only a small
percentage of the population own these weapons while the majority of the
population enjoys alcohol. So banning guns and magazines won't hurt your
reelection chances like prohibition will.
Harold
10 hours ago
I suspect there will be a large increase in "felons" in Rhode Island. Then
the law will be stricken down and they will no longer be felons. If
prosecuted in the meantime the victims of illegal prosecution will start
the civil lawsuits. Rhode Island may have to spend a great deal of money
before this is over.
LR
11 hours ago
I have a proposal: When legislators propose unConstitutional laws, they
are barred from office until they take remedial classes on the
Constitution. If they then again propose unConstitutional laws, they are
banned from public office forever.
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-upholds-rhode-islands-high-191711360.html