Bristol’s police chief was fully within his rights to deny a resident a concealed weapons permit because he determined the resident did not have a compelling need to carry the weapon, a federal …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
Bristol’s police chief was fully within his rights to deny a resident a concealed weapons permit because he determined the resident did not have a compelling need to carry the weapon, a federal judge has ruled.
The town of Bristol has a “need” clause, requiring a prospective permit holder to show a specific need to carry a concealed weapon, such as a clear threat to his life or safety. Concealed weapons permits are statewide, but individual towns can enact their own policies for approving or denying applications.
U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled last week that Bristol Chief Josue Canario did not violate Jarren R. Gendreau’s second amendment rights in denying him the permit he applied for in 2012. McConnell ruled that Bristol has the right to impose such a policy on public lands.
“The town of Bristol’s policy does not limit an individual’s right to possess a handgun in his home; it is only concerned with possession and use in the public sphere,” Judge McConnell wrote in his decision. “On that issue, firearm possession regulation in ‘the public sphere context’ does not even reach the safe haven of the second amendment. The town’s policy does not invade Mr. Gendreau’s Second Amendment rights.”
Mr. Gendreau applied for the permit in 2012, asserting that the main reason for his application is that he is an avid gun collector. He also said he needs to protect his $4,000 gun collection when traveling to and from the range; he wants to get a carry permit for work in Massachusetts, requiring a permit in his home state; and he often deposits large sums of money for his father, a Fall River business owner, necessitating protection.
Chief Canario appointed a board to review Mr. Genreau’s application. After hearing Mr. Gendreau’s testimony, the board recommended Chief Canario deny the application, which he did. Mr. Gendreau challenged the decision with the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which ordered Chief Canario to outline the rationale for his decision, which he had previously failed to do.
Chief Canario then reissued his denial, telling Mr. Gendreau in October 2013 that he “did not provide any convincing testimony” that he has good reason to fear an injury to his person or property, and has no other reason to carry a concealed weapon. The chief offered to reconsider the decision “in the event that you do become employed in a job that requires a concealed weapon permit.”
Nearly a year after Canario’s final decision, Mr. Gendreau filed his lawsuit in federal court, claiming the town policy violates his second amendment rights, leading to Judge McConnell’s ruling, based largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. vs Heller in 2010, during which the court ruled that a ban on handgun possession in the home — not in public — violates the second amendment.
“Bristol’s law conditioning permits for concealed weapons on a showing of need is well within the cadre of permissible public welfare regulations aimed at addressing perceived inherent dangers and risks surrounding the public possession of loaded, operable firearms,” Judge McConnell wrote. “The court finds no second amendment constitutional violation.”