Soooo are you for or against the ban Mr. Internet Stranger?

I think my comments in this thread speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, it's the law, and we all have to deal with it as we see fit.

I'm curious how someone ostensibly from OK just happened to drop into this tiny sub-forum and found it necessary to ask pointed questions about personal opinions concerning very recent legal developments here in little Rhode Island.

Thank-you. Sometimes the meanings get lost in a typed thread and we miss the context and non-verbal clues when speaking in person.

I interjected on your topic because I want the whole country of which I served and continue to do so to have the same rights respected as they are here in OK. From a practical standpoint I do occasionally fly around the country and for the most part bring a firearm. While I try hard to limit my trips to states that are 2A friendly sometimes connecting flights and general circumstances can put someone in not so friendly states as happened to Mr. Revell in New Jersey. (Revell vs Port Authority). I find it ironic I could carry automatic weapons with short barrels and LCMs (M-4) and M-9 in schools and embassies and all sorts of places that the government deems too sensitive for me to do so in my own country.

I've never been accused of being afraid of giving my opinion like more than a few of us on ARFCOM.



Good luck to you all in Rhode Island.

We either all hang together or we all hang separately.  These mag bans have to be stopped, if not it will spread throughout the country.  It's only a matter of time before the Dems steal enough elections to make it happen.   My mags are safely out of state....but sooner or later we may run out of states to safely store them until the madness ends

We all have our personal limits.

Fortunately, we here in RI have choices.

More later.  

Will advise.

Info released by 630 AM radio talk show host Matt Allen (M-F 1200-1500) on 20 DEC 2022 says that RI police claimed that 340 "LCM"s had been surrendered to the police.  No word on whether the "LCM"s were turned-in "with paperwork" and possibly re-claimed in the future, or turned-in "without paperwork" and likely for use by the cops.  The law itself does not specify any particular accounting procedure(s) to be followed by the police when accepting surrendered "LCM"s, although each Dep't may have such procedures.  

One respondent to Matt's show claimed that he knew of a single "collector" who surrendered 130 "LCM"s.

I for one would throw them in a dumpster before turning them in. Here in OK you could probably find a couple along with spare change in most couches. For you RI residents is 340 a significant number for your state? Not so much here.

If the Fed District Court decision on RI Mag Ban Law is appealed--and I expect it will be appealed, and the existing decision overturned-- then surrendering mags "with Paperwork" would allow return of the mags to the owner, according to RI A.G.  OTOH, that would likely take years, and a SCOTUS decision.  Whether AG's word is to be trusted is another thing, along with assuming the police properly store the mags long-term.  "No paperwork" surrender basically means saying good-bye to the mags.

As mentioned before, turning-in destroyed mags would be a "F-U" gesture, albeit extreme.  

"Permanently" modifying the "LCM"s is another option, as is moving the "LCM"s out of State.

There are options, and I expect that a good many owners of "LCM"s will tuck them away and wait until a favorable court decision comes along.  I hope all RI gunowners will see fit to contribute to the legal defense fund that is fueling the lawsuits/appeals.  Link above in this thread.

I have no idea about the number of "LCM"s present in RI.  Just a guess, but 340 seems like a small number in comparison.

Heck RAF I sent about 100 out of state.  So I'm guessing 340 is a very small number. Especially when you factor in most handguns come with 2.   Im guessing the ones who turned them in wear a mask daily, and voted for Biden more than once

you guys didn't get a grandfather clause?

Hah - and I say that as the whole fucking thing is laughable .
Commie $$ runs deeper than we thought it did here - not that it's not out in the open or anything , and everyone seems to just turn a blind eye , however it's fucking deep and these commies don't care .  Shit how many times recently have we seen our state 'reps' ( I use representative very loosely as their not representing me in any way shape or form ) shit on the constitution with a smile on their face .

This was so bought and paid for that one of the main bill sponsors didn't even bother to show the day they voted on this - which was last minute , more so than usual , with the outcome already done before it started .

There was no compromise , no logical discussion nor any desire for these commie fucks to bend at all - they didn't have to . . . $$ was already in their account .
They kept saying 'we want to work with you' , you being us lower class , however when there was an attempt at discussion they may as well have just stood up and laughed in our faces - oh wait . . .

I went on midwayusa.com today to buy a few 10 round p-mags to be in compliance.....they wouldn't even sell me those.  So I have a rifle that I can not buy mags for, and I can't use the ones I have......
I then added ammo to my cart.....yup cant buy that either.  I won't be shopping at midway again

They knew this . . . all part of the plan .

I was born in CT and split my time between NH and CT, (basically RI as well as Voluntown, CT is a stone throw from RI) and was around during the CT ban in 2013-2014.

I know their reputation around here is patchy, but Botch will ship you 10 round PMags without any issue. Mine took a couple of days to ship. They also have some Magpul 10-30 PMags which are a 30 round mag but factory limited and riveted to 10 rounds. Handy if you want to keep training with the same form factor.

We all knew this Mag Ban law was coming eventually, but I reckon a lot of folks expected to be "Grandfathered" and failed to hedge their bet and buy 10-rd mags--just in case.

In addition to some vendors ignorantly refusing to sell such mags to folks in RI (and I expect that situation will be cleared-up if enough people send the vendors links to RI laws) the other problem is scarcity of reliable 10-rd mags--and their increasing cost.

It's for certain that more draconian firearms laws will be proposed here in RI, and you should all give that some thought.

Prepare for the onslaught.

Your point about training with same form factor magazine is valid, as well as being able to use the same mag pouches, etc..  

Having experienced a Range Officer at a private range demand to measure the barrel length of my OEM, perfectly legal Mini-14, I know there are folks who will question what you have and rat you out if they believe you have an "illegal" magazine--often without asking questions and resolving the situation.

We all know folks like this.  Rather than see their private "Range" have legal problems, the rat will jot down your car license number, and rat you out after you have left.  Some rats won't have the decency to confront you and resolve the issue on the spot.  Rats are, by nature, cowards.

As things are, and admittedly being very cautious, I would not be seen on the range with any magazine that was anything other than an obvious 10-rd mag (or less).

Due to the presence of rats, everywhere, I think that the wisest procedure.  No matter if a former "LCM" was "permanently" modified to be fully in compliance with RI State law; I'll use obvious 10-rd mags on the range.  I have enough for my purposes.

To follow-up, using anything other than a 10-rd max capacity mag in a home defense situation will be problematic.  Even assuming a 100% "justified" shoot, the RI gunowner will be arrested and brought before a Grand Jury; standard procedure. If an "illegal" magazine was used, no matter how "justified" the shoot, you will be facing serious problems.

 In the event of a shooting on one's property, I would expect the police to conduct a search of the premises, which might include looking for "contraband/illegal items, such as "illegal" magazines, and perhaps other items/substances.  I think that's considered "normal" in that situation.  

I did my bit in opposing the current law/Mag Ban and have donated $ to the folks Sueing in court.

I'm not a Lawyer.   Nothing said above should be considered as legal advice.  A friend of mine (RIP Donn Dibiasio) shot an armed perp in his business and had to spend $$$ during Grand Jury proceedings.  "No True Bill" found, so he never went to trial.  My speculations/opinions are those of an informed layman who talks to RI lawyers from time to time, and to repeat, NOT legal advice.

It's not only midway but also sportsman's guide won't ship rifle or shotgun ammo here anymore. I suspect alot of the larger companies will cease ammo deliveries here too.

That's because of the requirement/law, as of 01 Jan 2023, that buyers of ammo in RI must display a valid, named, RI "Blue Card", along with State-issued identification to confirm same ID of buyer and Blue Card holder.

People who lost their "Blue Cards will need to take a test and re-apply to obtain the Blue Card.  Valid Hunter Safety documents seem to be equivalent to Blue Card for purposes of buying ammo, AFAIK.

I posted a thread warning about this, months ago, and suggesting those without a "Blue Card" obtain such.  IDK what current "wait time" is (used to be about 10 days) but suspect the worst.

Our RI ammo prices just went up dramatically, since the gun stores/local ammo vendors have the advantage of us without outside, internet vendors competing with them.

Not that a grandfather clause is worth much where gun grabbing politicians are concerned.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Hometown/Lamont-wants-to-go-after-pre-bans/26-665898/

So when is the appeal coming?   I feel we have some morons litigating this on our side.

No "Grandfather" clause, and no "buy-back" provisions included in existing RI Mag Ban law.

The case has yet to be heard, the only thing heard so far is a motion for injunction.

Fed Court Judge dismissed Plaintiff's motion for a stay of the RI Mag Ban Law.  Currently the Mag Ban Law is fully in effect in RI.  I have no special knowledge, but I have yet to hear that the verdict by 1st Fed District Court (in RI) is being appealed.

If not appealed, and subsequently overturned, then the Judge's ruling stands as Law.

Suggest considering donating funds to the parties who are appealing the verdict.  Links above.  Money talks.

Hopefully other cases around the country addressing mag bans will help. Unfortunately it doesn't do anything immediately for RI. On another note I read somewhere that 25 states have some form of Constitutional Carry. Talk about a nation divided on the 2A.

This came out today on my clubs newsletter:

From: Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
Re: Next Steps – Appeal of Denial of Request for Preliminary Injunction – Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Neronha, et al.
Date: January 4, 2022
On December 14, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island released its written decision denying the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the recently passed Large Capacity Feeding Device Ban of 2022 (“Magazine Ban”) passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly in June of 2022.
1) Recent Developments and Appeal
Recently, Kelly, Souza & Parmenter, P.C. was contacted by the law firm of Clement and Murphy, LLC to serve as co-counsel in the filing of an appeal of Judge McConnell’s denial of the Preliminary Injunction filed by the Plaintiffs in the above referenced case. The attorneys of Clement and Murphy were the attorneys who represented the Plaintiffs of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case that established landmark precedent for Second Amendment challenges. The order issued by the Judge is an interlocutory order, which is an order that allows an appeal to be taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which will be filed by January 13, 2022, i.e. 30 days from the entry of the final judgment or order appealed from.
2) Total Costs Incurred To Date
As of the present date, Kelly, Souza & Parmenter has incurred a total of $140,000.00 in legal fees billed to this case, reflecting 443.55 hours invested (collective of all attorneys, paralegals and staff involved) in pursuing the Preliminary Injunction. The case required an
     1

enormous amount of research and briefing with very little time once the proceedings were underway. Further, the Plaintiffs retained an expert, Ashley Hlebinsky, who serves as an expert witness and drafted a very comprehensive report for this injunction hearing. Unfortunately, the Judge declared that she was not a credible expert witness, which was (frankly) an erroneous decision. Ashley is furnished with the same, and/or substantially similar qualifications as the State’s experts who were presented during the hearing, which the Judge deemed to be credible experts.
3) Legal Issues Involved On Appeal
Upon careful review of the Judge’s written decision, we feel there are two (2) main constitutional issues which were decided wrongfully. Those being: 1) that Magazines are not considered “Arms”, and thus are not provided Second Amendment protection; and 2) that citizens who were in possession of pre-owned Magazines were not entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Taking’s Clause, as the government is permitted to require the disgorgement of private property if it deemed to be exercising its “police power” where the property targeted is dangerous and injurious to the public’s health, safety and/or general welfare.
The written decision made clear that this was a politically motivated decision, reflecting a lack of true and fair consideration to the constitutional questions involved. Such was very apparent where the decision referenced almost every major shooting to happen in the past two (2) years, and the decision being issued on the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook Massacre. Needless to say, we feel that was not a coincidence (as well was mentioned in the written decision).
2

4) What People May Do To Help
The issues of the case have been narrowed down to very narrow issues of law that we believe we can prevail on when taking appeal with a different justice presiding over the review of our appeal. Many Courts around the country have gained substantial momentum in combatting similar legislation recently, such as the case of Oregon Firearms Fed’n, Inc. v. Brown, where on December 12, 2022, a Federal Court Judge issued a decision temporarily blocking the enforcement of Oregon’s voter approved high capacity magazine ban. Though an injunction has not yet been issued in that case, the judge refused to expressly deny it due to the constitutional issues at hand.
The final decision on this case will ultimately decide the direction the pendulum swings regarding whether the future holds more restrictions on Second Amendment rights, or less restriction. We are grateful for the support from our Second Amendment Community thus far, but continue to express that any donations to this cause help, as the fees have been substantial thus far.
On a final note, we understand many individuals have wanted information as the case goes along on the proceedings, status, etc. We understand everyone wants to stay in the loop, but please understand that if you are not a Plaintiff to this suit, there are certain things that we may not divest due to attorney client privilege. We have worked our hardest to keep non-plaintiffs in the loop as much as possible, but please acknowledge that the rules of professional conduct, and the law prevent us from doing so in certain circumstances.
The costs of appeal will be substantial, and any further support from our community is crucial, and extremely appreciated in fighting this unconstitutional legislation.

Glad to hear the very flawed and erroneous decision will be appealed.  I'll be donating more money to the link provided previously, and consider all others ante-up as best they can.

I'm glad to see the firm who had the NY case will take on ours.  I'm still curious as to where the NRA(or anyone else) is on this.  RI shouldn't have to go this alone.   Needless to say I am not renewing my membership and will donate the funds to the fight.  At least I know it will go to something useful

I am beyond pissed at the FPC, and GOA….it’s like they have completely ignored us.

Clement & Murphy getting involved is HUGE. For those who aren't familiar, Paul Clement has argued more cases before SCOTUS since 2000 than any other attorney. He was also given an ultimatum by his previous firm after winning Bruen: no more 2A cases, or leave. He chose to leave and found Clement & Murphy.

IIRC, FPC tried to submit something like an amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief to RI hearing, but judge disallowed it.

They did. As with the rest of his rulings, his majesty had no interest in hearing from anyone who might contradict his predefined biases and desired outcome.

$140,000. For that stammering shitshow of a performance in court?

Good to know.

Notice of appeal was filed on 13th January. There isn't much in the notice itself, but noteworthy that two FPC contacts are on the list of recipients.

https://gofile.io/d/DTxqn5

Info on First U S Circuit Court of Appeals

Yeah, disappointed at that.

While the original pleading of the motion is Fed Court might not have all that some hoped, I believe they got their important points across in their briefs, and that's what subsequent Courts will review.

 Not a Lawyer, but I've sat through some Court cases and what we saw was far from the worst I've seen.

We could have had F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, and the entire O.J. "Dream Team" pleading our case, and with this Judge, it would not have made a difference.

Completely agree, this judge was on a political mission from the get go. Obama put him there for a reason.

If we go by by whom the Judge(s) were appointed, I don't expect miracles from the appeal of this case to First Fed Circuit Court of Appeals.

OTOH, the "higher" the level of the Court, the more likely the Court will receive SCOTUS "attention", and the less likely the Judges on the Court will want to be reversed.

IIRC there have been some Judges appointed by Presidents unfriendly to the 2A who have actually followed recent SCOTUS decisions.

It's my belief that we are fighting against time as we very much want 2A decisions decided by this SCOTUS, and not one where Biden has replaced 2A friendly Justices with anti-2A types.

I have a feeling, based on hearing the opinions of some legal types who are in a position to have a valid opinion, that SCOTUS is waiting for the chance to deliver a legal "spanking" to inferior Courts who seem to be deliberately ignoring recent SCOTUS 2A rulings.  This situation might well work in our favor, since even the Justices who are unfriendly to the 2A have a definite, possibly overriding stake in ensuring SCOTUS decisions are observed by inferior Courts.

Just a guess, and I'm not a lawyer.

Wish we had these lawyers....

Illinois loses appeal over gun control law

RI seems to have the same exemptions for LE and retired LE, that this lawyer was successful in arguing may violate equal protection clause and granted the injunction.

RI even has this in their constitution:

Section 2. Laws for good of whole   Burdens to be equally distributed   Due process   Equal protection   Discrimination   No right to abortion granted.All free governments are instituted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. All laws, therefore, should be made for the good of the whole; and the burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. No otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state, its agents or any person or entity doing business with the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.

Bump, another donation inbound

Any news?    This seems to be taking forever

I periodically check the court calendar for First US Circuit Court of Appeals, and there is nothing in the immediate future.

Just heard today of a male arrested in RI.  Multiple charges, including Domestic Violence.  What I noticed is that amongst the charges were "Multiple Counts" of possessing "High Capacity" magazines.  To my non-lawyer mind, this means that the potential penalty for possessing a single "High-Capacity" magazine may possibly be multiplied by the number of such magazines owned.

"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."  

Note that the above is for a single magazine.  Being caught with multiple magazines might allow the RI State Persecutor Prosecutors to add-on multiple counts of the same charge, possibly with consecutive, additive imprisonment times and/or fines.  Latest (unverified) news seems to allow for multiple counts for multiple mags.

Will report back with solid news, when received.

I caution ALL my friends to "prepare" themselves in the event that they have an "encounter" with the Law with respect to all laws, including current RI Mag Ban Law.  I understand we all expect the RI Mag Ban Law to be eventually declared "Unconstitutional".  Maybe so, maybe not.  Consider what you will do to protect yourself in the meantime.

I don't own any high capacity magazines.  🤷🏻‍♂️. I'm just a fan of the constitution and this law is in clear violation of it on so many levels.  Im befuddled that it's taking so long

The trouble is the same argument that let the mag ban stay in this state has worked in Illinois, and Washington.

Mags are not arms, therefore not covered by the 2nd ammendment.

I know It’s as stupid as it sounds, but the antis have got it working for them, and as long as it keeps working…our rights are gone forever.

Well, if one has multiple "Plus 10 Rd" "High Cap" mags being "discovered" by RI LEO Agencies, then it's a serious problem for the Defendant.

Untli it get to SCOTUS....sometime in 2037