On 2 NOV 2022 at 0930 First Fed District Court (RI) will hold a "Motion Hearing" concerning 22-cv-0246 "Ocean State Tactical LLC, et al vs. State of RI".

You will need to go Here and enter pertinent start and end dates as search terms.  The Judge who will be hearing "Motions" is John J. Mcconnel, Jr..  He was appointed to his position by Barack Obama.

Deadline of the Mag Ban Law is (IIRC) 18 DEC 2022.  Check date to be certain; law allowed 180 day "Grace period" after Gov Mckee signed the bill into law on 21 JUNE 2022.

There does not appear to be anything else relating to the Mag Ban on Court Docket through 18 DEC 2022.

An Obama appointed judge....I'm sure we will get a fair hearing

There have been a number of recent instances of very similar (going on identical) laws overturned by Fed judges.  Not sure if this guy being an Obama appointee really means much compared to many recent precedents overturning such laws in Fed courts.

Plaintiffs seem aware of recent Fed court decisions overturning similar laws as per radio show interview on 22 OCT, and no doubt will seek to make the judge aware of them as well.  Not a Lawyer, but IMHO NYSRPA vs Bruen SCOTUS decision does not allow the judge a lot of options.

Nothing's certain, so suggest being ready for all possible contingencies.

If you haven't been paying attention

a. judges are supposed to be independend - that is 'exercise judgement'

b.  particularly with lifetime appointments, there is essentially *no* motivation for someone to stick with their answers from confirmation hearings.  Looking at you, SCOTUS

c.  as a subset of b, particularly at the federal level and specific to SCOTUS, there has been a pronounced tendency for judges to moderate certain extreme views, and tend to more favorably see civil rights issues [all - not just voting, not just guns, not just smoking pot at home, etc]

Notice of Hearing on MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction: Motion Hearing RE-SCHEDULED to THURSDAY 11/3/2022 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. The hearing previously scheduled for Wednesday 11/2/22 is hereby CANCELLED and re-scheduled to 11/3/22. (Jackson, Ryan)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/45014304/Ocean_State_Tactical,_LLC,_et_al_v_State_of_Rhode_Island

Not a Lawyer, but the Motion(s) heard may or may not be immediately ruled-upon.

The judge "hopes to rule on the TRO before it goes into effect."   Just about how I figured it would go.  Guess I should lower my expectations as to what's going to happen next Tuesday.

For anyone that missed it and really want to boost their blood pressure...

https://www.facebook.com/danbidondilive/videos/525562375713236/

Would love it if @nolocontendre could take a look at this shitshow and see if anything can be done to salvage it.  I'm of the mind that Rhode Island is a lost cause, but willing to be proven wrong.  I guess next week will tell the tale.  Still, I don't feel right abandoning my home.  Just doesn't sit right with me.

Cliff notes for those of us who refuse to go on FB?  I'm guessing the fix is in....

No Lawyer, but I believe the lawyers for both sides may be allowed to file "supplementary briefs" augmenting and clarifying their verbal testimony at the hearing.

What really matters is that their initial briefs/motions are clear and legally sound.  The supplementary briefs, if permitted by the court, ought to address questions made by the court during hearing, and clarifying answers made by counsel.

This back-and-forth is why all this legal business takes as long as it does.

I suggest being prepared for any eventuality.  But taking a position of despair right now is, I think, premature.

As far as can be seen nothing reported in ProJo about this, nor on any other new services.  Not surprising, as no final judgment made, which was also expected.

Be patient and prepared for all possible outcomes.

I received this text from one of the plaintiffs in the case
“No decision issued today at the hearing. Decision to be handed down soon, but no timeframe given...”.  I was told it will be before 12/18/22.   Molon Labe

According to the reddit sub, Firearms Policy Coalition is finally getting involved.

One would have hoped that the FPC was involved from the outset.

Agreed. Maybe they were behind the scenes but I'm not sure.

Hope does not pay for lawsuits.  Regular donations do.  

If you are not funding GAO, 2nd amendment Foundation, the guy in MS fighting the NFA battle, then you are a spectator.

Donate HERE

I've already doated some $ and will donate more.

Please consider donating as if your 2A rights are at stake, because they ARE.

Moving to RI in January, any updates on where the ban stands or what the next step is? All my bags will be at the back of the uhaul and probably fall out.

We are awaiting Fed Court Judge's decision, which should be made prior to 18 DEC 2022.  If he overturns the law, AND/or issues a "Stay" in its implementation, it's a sure-fire thing that the State will appeal.

I wonder why he's waiting so long to release his decision.  Which I'm sure will get challenged either way

If I was reeeeeally cynical, I'd guess so that the law goes into effect and a whole bunch of people become insta-felons before he rules in the almighty State's favor and there's any chance to appeal the outcome. Or he's performing mental gymnastics trying to figure out how to rule for the State despite Heller and Bruen.

My guess is its alittle of both.  The laws clearly unconstitutional and will eventually be ruled as such

Nobody yet knows what opinion will be handed down.  IMHO, given that any decision will be appealed, my "Hope" is that a "Stay" of RI Law will be granted during the appeals process.

At some point, the "Appeal" will very likely be sustained due to recent SCOTUS decisions.  Extra cost to Appellants, such extra cost on the other side borne by RI taxpayers

At that point, we, the taxpayers of RI, can reasonably ask why our public officials, including  obviously biased and anti-gun RI Atty General Neronha, continued to waste taxpayer money on an obviously fruitless legal challenge.  There IS a method for Recalling public officials within RI Constitution/laws and mentioned in this forum in a separate thread.  Suggest deliberately wasting taxpayer money might be grounds for doing so.

Think about it.  There is more than one legal avenue to make some anti-gunners miserable.

I have no "special" knowledge, but I "expect" an announcement from the Judge/Court on late Friday 16 Dec which is last business day before "grace period" expires.  Classic day/time for a controversial news announcement.

I "expect" that the RI FedCourt Judge will either issue a "Stay" on the whole law, or declare some parts of it "Unconstitutional", thus engendering a re-written law, and/or future higher Court challenges.  In sum, this contest of the RI Mag Ban Law is unlikely to be finalized, and we can anticipate even more far-reaching and Draconian RI laws being proposed in the near future.

RI-specific "AWB"?  Likely in our future.

I certainly could be wrong, so stay tuned.

Injunction denied:

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1603095752581980162

"Common-sense public safety legislation" that "violates no one's constitutional rights."

The ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.53873/gov.uscourts.rid.53873.37.0.pdf

I wish I could say I'm shocked and surprised by this ruling, but it was expected being how liberal this state has become.

That and the overwhelming apathy of the majority of firearm owners here is incredibly disheartening so there are very few that are actually speaking up/out.

I fear raf is right about this year being the year that an assault weapon ban happens. Let's see what those apathatic fucks say then.

Please take the time to read the ruling. All of it. It's breathtaking in its sheer arrogance and willful ignorance of Bruen.

It’s beyond rediculous at this point. I expected no less from an Obama appointed judge.

Magazines aren't arms and aren't an essential part of a firearm. The only essential part is the firearm and the bullet?

The plaintiff's experts cannot be proven to be experts, but the state's experts are experts.

That's what I got out of reading it.

And Bruen was decided by SCOTUS without a factual record, but my ruling is better because I have lots of evidence even though I ignored half of it. Oh, don't forget the Intermediate scrutiny analysis at the end, complete with references to spraying bullets from the hip, plus a shoutout to Duncan v Bonta as a similar statute that was upheld (even though it was actually GVRd by SCOTUS).

So what happens next?  Im assuming this will be overturned on appeal.....there is an appeal coming right?  And where the hell is the NRA and other national organizations?

Also, all my mags are now safely out of state.   I only have 10 round mags, until this is appealed and ruled on(there is an appeal coming...right?)

Interesting section right at the end about allowing LCM (sic) owners to turn them into local law enforcement agencies for safekeeping pending the outcome of any appeals and trials. Property to be returned to the owners if plaintiffs prevail, otherwise an unspecified method for L.E. and the court to "...work together to ensure a grace period during which owners may make arrangements to direct a disposition of their LCMs out of safe keeping in a way that complies with the statute"

I'm sure we'll all get right on that. They're from the government and they're here to help.

Let's not overlook that this activist judge released his ruling on the 10 year anniversary of Sandy Hook.   This is political decision, and has nothing to do with the Constitution

Well, this disappointing news will go far towards my not making predictions in the future.  I had forgotten about this being the anniversary of a mass shooting.

I reckon this decision will be appealed.  Will be sending the Plaintiffs some more money, and I encourage others to do so as well.

I'll be sending more too, but I hope the same firm of lawyers will not be handling any appeals. They made a right pig's ear of this from day one, starting with being in such a rush that they didn't wait a few days for the Bruen decision to be released, and then not using Duncan v Bonta (the CA case involving a virtually identical statute) as a template even though SCOTUS showed their hand by GVRing the 9th Circus's ruling upholding the ban.

I just was about to post this. If anyone knows the guys over at ocean state tactical please urge them to get it touch with the FPC or Nolo. Am I mistaken that if this goes to the supreme court it has the ability to nullify Mass' ban on mags too? May be able to drum up support from GOAL and those guys if so.

Fully concur!

What is NOLO?  Link to them, please.

Is this the NOLO you mentioned?  https://www.bing.com/search?q=nolo+firearms&cvid=8839ad162ecc46afb9d0430fb67fc4dd&aqs=edge..69i57j0j69i64.8219j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

He means @NoloContendre, Arfcom member who specializes in 2A litigation e.g. Young v Hawaii among others.

Correct, sorry for the delay I was on my way into the office. He has successfully litigated quite a few cases. I'd be willing to donate again to the fund just not with the same law firm that represented Ocean State Tactical this time around...... Watching the last hearing was painful.

Heard an interview on Matt Allen's radio program (630 AM) and they're thinking about an appeal.  

I'm NOT a Lawyer, but I listen to a good many of them for advice.

I was dismayed that Fed Judge ignored existing law and similar judgments against almost exactly identical laws in other States.

My expectation is that cases like this, which seem to fly in the face of recent Scotus 2A decisions will all be overturned--albeit at considerable expense.  The resistance of Lower Courts to recent and controlling SCOTUS opinions is remarkable, and unfortunate; probably due to the political orientation of the Judges, and those (Obama and Biden) who appointed them.  This particular Fed Judge was an Obama appointee, and from public comments, he's a Leftist.

Not a Lawyer, but I read his "opinion" and found it entirely ignorant of recent SCOTUS 2A decisions, and likely to be overturned--at great expense.

I'm donating some more $$ to the folks contesting this travesty of justice and suggest you do so as well.  Money talks.

The ruling & opinion was total BS.  The guy used pre-Bruen reasoning.  The "public safety" argument CANNOT be used anymore, it's been thrown out with the Bruen decision.  Plaintiffs need to go with GOA, FPC and SAF.  This is very winnable.  Let's go New England, we can do this.

I think your opinion not only reasonable, but likely sustained on appeal.  I'll donate $$ towards funding it.

In the meantime, every RI owner of a "banned" magazine" is subject to Felony charges and penalties.

We are all one step away from being targeted by anti-gunners or anyone else, for our firearms ownership.

I'm taking precautions, even though no known enemies.  Suggest doing the same.

Judicial activism at its worst.  They are gearing up for more bs in CT as well. We will prevail, maybe not right away but we will.  The right shall not be infringed.

For those who believe that items offered by "MagBlock" company, no matter how carefully selected from their wide inventory, will be a "drop-in" fit for your particular magazine, maybe so, maybe not.

Suggest caution in making 100% certain that the correct item for your speciic magazine(s) is ordered.  User should also be willing and able to modify even carefully chosen Magblocks which are purported to fit your specific magazines.

Most Magblocks fit OK, perhaps with a bit of jiggling-- so I'm told.  Of the rest, all the ones I've heard reports about can be user-altered with a Dremel tool with a rotary file bit.

I'm told that MagBlock is very reasonable in working with the buyer to solve "issues".

https://riag.ri.gov/press-releases/office-attorney-general-reminds-rhode-islanders-approaching-dates-recently-enacted

Living in a very free state I don't have the skin in the game you all do but I truly hope there is mass non-compliance. For now I see any charges as add-ons to an otherwise non-sympathetic defendant. The first time a respectable citizen is charged with LCM possession only I see that as an ignition point in your state. Be prepared.

I am not a lawyer, so take the following as mere speculation:

The "Guidance" offered by RI AG's office, to wit: "Examples of permanent modification include the insertion of a limiter or blocker into a non-compliant device which will limit the capacity to ten (10) rounds. The limiter or blocker must be epoxied or riveted to the body of the device to constitute a permanent modification." does not appear in the stature as enacted.  There is no mention in the statute about epoxying and/or riveting whatsoever, although the word "Permanent" does appear, without a definition of what "Permanent" means.  This sort of language defining what a "permanent" modification is is present in similar statutes enacted by other States, so presumably RI AG is "following suit" with what some other States have enacted.

Full Text of RI Mag Ban Law

Whether or not the RI AG has the legal ability to "add-on" his interpretations of the law is questionable, to me.  It's for sure that any LEO will follow AG's "guidance" in deciding whether or not an arrest is warranted.

I'll be speaking to a couple of Lawyers tonight and will revise my comments in due course.


ETA:  Lawyers tell me that RI AG is "probably" within his legal authority to offer "guidance" as to definition of "Permanent" modifications.  Ultimately, disputes about "Permanent" mag alteration definitions will require Separate lawsuits and future Court decisions.   Or a re-writing/ amendment of existing statute which might be easily done.

The RI AG has proposed TWO ways of turning-in Non-compliant magazines.   One way involves no paperwork--just turn them in.  Second way involves User/Owner paperwork and such mags will be "stored by the police" until future challenges to the law are finally resolved, probably by SCOTUS., and likely taking years.  Your call.

I'm NOT a Lawyer, so take the following as you see fit.

If taking the First course of action,  Destroying the magazine body prior to turning it in might be a "F-You" to the PTB since the Police will likely make future use of your magazines for their own use.  Springs, followers, and floorplates might have some residual re-sale value.

If Taking the Second course of action, suggest deeply engraving the spine/body of the magazine with a unique number--not easily removed-- and then dunking the magazine  and its' vital spring in thick oil, letting it drain, and individually encasing each magazine in a stout baggie or plastic wrap.  Take pictures showing engraved unique mag identifying numbers, retain at least one set, and include another set in separate baggie. along with the extremely stout container for all the mags.  Make sure to indelibly identify the container on its' outside, and include baggied--up identifying info inside the container.

DEMAND receiving Police officer personally examine all individual mags and Demand he/she sign ALL pictures of uniquely numbered/identified mags which you have provided.  Far be it from me to suggest that the Police might not take "due care" in preserving/storing such mags in the years before a future SCOTUS decision releases them back to original owner.  If elderly or unhealthy, make certain to designate a legally-appointed agent to take back possession in the event of your death or incapacity.  Make certain that such legally-appointed Agents know about all this business, and are specifically named/mentioned in the documents turning custody of the mags over the Police as well as means to contact them.  

I'm not a Lawyer, so take the above as simple guidance from a layman.  Use all caution!

IMHO Something else to consider is that this law is a perfect weapon to coerce an otherwise upstanding citizen into becoming an informant. Here's what I hear the prosecuting attorney say "Mr. XYZ we found you own 3 LCMs. We will drop the felony charges if you inform on (Mr. Insert Name Here)"

Be very careful who you trust going forward.

Good advice!

However this only works if Mr XYZ has "LCMs", and non-compliant "LCMs" at that.