Council discusses concealed-carry weapons permits

Matt Bower
Posted 1/27/15

Much of the discussion at last Monday’s City Council meeting was dominated by the hot button issue of concealed-carry weapons permits.

Ward 3 Councilwoman Camille Vella-Wilkinson planned to …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Council discusses concealed-carry weapons permits

Posted

Much of the discussion at last Monday’s City Council meeting was dominated by the hot button issue of concealed-carry weapons permits.

Ward 3 Councilwoman Camille Vella-Wilkinson planned to introduce an ordinance that would tighten up the language regarding the issuance of concealed-carry permits by the city’s Board of Public Safety but no vote was taken, as the decision was made to put it in the pending legislation file and revisit it at a later date.

Unlike cities and towns throughout the rest of the state where local police departments or police chiefs issue concealed-carry weapons permits, Warwick is unique in that the city’s Board of Public Safety is the only entity in the city capable of issuing such permits.

A number of residents that were denied approval for the permits by the board have complained, saying they have been unfairly targeted and wrongfully denied, as they feel they meet all the requirements and should be granted a concealed-carry permit.

“There are two bodies in the state that issue such permits – the Attorney General’s Office and the municipality where a resident works or lives,” Vella-Wilkinson said. “State law says the state ‘may’ issue a permit through the Attorney General’s Office, but the municipality ‘shall’ [issue a permit].”

The “may” language provides the attorney general more discretion as to who should be approved for a permit, whereas the “shall” language restricts that ability of the municipality.

Vella-Wilkinson said there’s a problem when the process in the city is less permissible than at the state level, yet residents that are being denied by the city are getting approved through the attorney general’s office.

“I was hearing from residents that they felt embarrassed and ashamed by the interview process and that they had to defend their request,” she said.

Vella-Wilkinson, a gun owner who was raised in a house with guns, trained in the military in proper firearm use, and a National Rifle Association (NRA) member, said her goal was to codify that process and make it more objective, rather than subjective.

In crafting the ordinance, Vella-Wilkinson said she relied on individuals well schooled in the Second Amendment and who are NRA trainers that have experience with obtaining concealed-carry permits.

According to the ordinance, applicants must be 21 and have a place of residence or business within the city of Warwick verified by the Board of Canvassers, Department of Taxation or chief of oolice; or have a residence within the United States and have a license or permit to “carry a pistol or revolver concealed upon his or her person issued by the authorities of any other state or subdivision of the United States.”

Reasons to deem an applicant unsuitable to be licensed include: being convicted of a felony; being found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a crime of violence, including domestic abuse at the misdemeanor level, or any crime punishable by a prison term of one year or greater; being a fugitive from justice; receiving a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; or having a permit revoked by the board within four years prior to the most recent application.

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

The Warwick permit would be good for four years and allow the resident to carry the weapon anywhere in the state of Rhode Island.

When speaking with Diane Pearson, legal advisor to the Warwick Board of Public Safety, about the ordinance, Vella-Wilkinson said Pearson had a few concerns, two of which were to extend the time period the board has to review a completed application, three letters of reference and a Background Criminal Investigation (BCI) from 30 days to 60 days because she feels more people will come forward seeking permits, as well as to remove self-defense as a proper reason for a permit.

“People say a concealed-carry permit is a privilege, not a right,” Vella-Wilkinson said. “I feel it’s imperative to hear from my colleagues on the council on whether self-defense is a proper reason for a concealed-carry permit.”

Ward 4 Councilman Joseph Solomon asked about mental health.

“My concern is for public safety and to ensure that weapons are not permitted to someone mentally unstable that could cause harm to the public,” he said.

Vella-Wilkinson said the issue of mental health is not addressed in the ordinance because of a concern that military veterans that suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) would not seek treatment for fear of losing out on employment opportunities.

“This is a common concern articulated by individuals not involved in gun ownership,” she said. “If you look at the incidents that involve gun play with the mentally unstable, in many cases these people aren’t going through the proper procedures to get permits and weapons.”

Solomon said the world isn’t a perfect place and people aren’t perfect.

“You can’t say that everyone that applies is responsible,” he said. “You need a safety mechanism or some sort of qualifying information as to whether or not a person would pose a hazard to themselves, their family, or society.”

Council President Donna Travis, who was also raised in a home with guns, agreed with Solomon.

“Law enforcement personnel get psych evaluations and different kinds of tests, but what’s happening with this,” she said. “We have to be concerned with where these weapons land out there.”

Travis said she’s received calls from concerned constituents worried about people carrying weapons when they go to pick up their kids at school.

Responding to complaints that time and money is being wasted on this issue, Ward 1 Councilman Steven Colantuono said the issue is important to discuss whether it affects one, 10 or 100 people.

“I do have a concealed-carry permit. It is a privilege and I take it seriously,” he said. “There are several state and federal court cases pending that could give us guidance on how to do this properly.”

Ward 8 Councilman Joseph Gallucci said he comes from a family of law enforcement officials.

“I feel strongly about this issue and about law enforcement officials and their opinions,” he said. “This issue should be governed by the state, not local communities.”

Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur, who also has a concealed-carry permit and has been an NRA instructor, said he has received many calls from constituents that have applied at the Board of Public Safety and were denied based on the answers they gave to questions, saying they were seeking the permit because they live in a tough neighborhood or their job requires them to carry lots of money.

“People shouldn’t have to change where they work or live to avoid being denied,” he said. “If they meet the parameters and demonstrate a need for the permit, it should be granted.”

Ladouceur said there are many cities and states where residents can openly carry weapons, some of which even have low crime rates, but he agrees it’s best to wait on the pending court cases.

Col. Stephen McCartney, chief of the Warwick Police Department, said it’s been his experience that when applicants can demonstrate good reason to fear injury to person or property, the permit has been granted; and when they can’t, it’s been denied.

“There are a lot of aspects to the ordinance that are hard to vet out. It comes down to how we define good reason to fear injury to person or property,” he said. “Many of the callouts we deal with are good people with no criminal record that may be dealing with domestic abuse or are suffering from a problem and have flipped out.”

Ward 7 Councilwoman Kathleen Usler, who is not a gun owner, said owning a gun and keeping it locked away in a safe place at home is different than walking around town with it.

“Do I want you coming to a hockey rink or baseball field with a gun strapped to your ankle? No, I don’t,” she said. “If you have them at home locked up with the bullets in a separate place, that’s one thing.”

Usler said she doesn’t want someone next to her at a movie theater with a gun that hasn’t gone through an extensive evaluation.

“Anyone in this room could snap at any moment,” she said. “You shouldn’t be walking around with them.”

Ward 9 Councilman Steve Merolla said in the 17 years he’s been on the council, this is the first time this issue has come before the council.

“Typically, it’s a state issue, so you don’t have disagreement between various towns about what’s permitted,” he said. “If we make the legislation too specific, it ties the hands of the person making the decision at the end.”

Merolla said he gets nervous when he sees a four-page document that is designed to tailor a result.

“It might be time to replace the people making the decisions if we don’t like those decisions, rather than write legislation to tailor a result,” he said.

Vella-Wilkinson said it’s critical to vet the issue from a full 360 degrees and get everyone’s input.

“If someone is bound and determined to create mayhem, they don’t need a gun,” she said. “We’re talking about law-abiding citizens going through a lengthy process spending time and money.”

Vella-Wilkinson said if the city waits on the results of pending court cases, the matter could languish, but she agreed that waiting for now is the best option.

“I will continue to tighten the language and you will see this ordinance again,” she said.

Comments

10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • rick14

    In both MA and CT personal protection and all lawfull acts is a good enough reason for a conceal carry permit as long as the person passes the backround check. And CT had that terrible incident at the school. The 2 councilman that admitted having a permit didn't state the reason they have it. Was it personal protection? How many other members of the council also have one, and for what reason?

    There are already alot of guns out there which were bought legally by responsible people. Remember, the person that is planning to do something will get a gun however he can, whether he already owns it, without even having a conceal carry permit, or will get it illegally.

    Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Report this

  • FranklinsGhost

    Does the quoted politician who is scared to sit next to a concealed carry person actually think that someone who goes through such a long vetting process to get a permit really going to be the one who is going to "snap"?

    Such anti-gun people are the ones who don't trust themselves around guns so they transfer that distrust onto the general population

    By the way, a gun locked up at home away from ammunition is of absolutely no use in a self defense situation.

    That's another silly idea I saw quoted in the article.

    Sounds like the gun owners on the council need to provide better firearms instruction to their leftist fellow board members.

    Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Report this

  • PaulHuff

    How is the right to bear arms a "Privlege"?

    RI's permit process is unconstitutional. You should not have to show proper need to exercise rights that are enumerated in the federal and state constitutions.

    What if we needed to show proper cause to vote, or worship, or speak freely?

    Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    "as the decision was made to put it in the pending legislation file and revisit it at a later date." 5 times the council suspended the rules to hear public comment and in the end, the council cant come to a decision to put it to a vote. How pathetic.

    2 points

    1. Clearly we should not be discussing the issue as the criteria to carry has been established by the state, and if met by the individual, the chief of police should not be usurping established state law on behalf of his personal views.

    2. What other issue, and what other special interest group, has the council ever suspended the rules for and held 5 public hearings with a radio talk show host from another city as the catalyst for the issue? Unfortunately, in the end it appears that the exercise was for one council woman to hear herself speak. Very unfortunate.

    Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Report this

  • Ward5resident

    Yet again it's the law abiding citizen who suffers. Councilwoman Usler, would you feel the same way about not wanting to sit next to a (lawfully concealed) weapon carrier, if a criminal burst through the doors and began executing people? Talk to the 70 injured and to the families of the 12 dead in Aurora Colorado and see how many wish they had a weapon on them that day. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!

    Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Report this

  • davebarry109

    To Kathleen Usler: What good is a gun that is locked up with the ammo kept elsewhere? Why have it at all if it isn't readily available?

    I also disagree with the Chief in Warwick, whom I greatly respect. Why should someone have to show a fear of life? If someone is a law abiding citizen, they should be allowed to carry. Having to identify a threat is silly. When the threat goes away, will you remove the permit?

    Thursday, January 29, 2015 Report this

  • davebarry109

    Usler is scared of guns, clearly. She shouldn't have a vote. She is like many out there that have an irrational fear (phobia?) of guns.

    Thursday, January 29, 2015 Report this

  • davebarry109

    Usler is scared of guns, clearly. She shouldn't have a vote. She is like many out there that have an irrational fear (phobia?) of guns.

    Thursday, January 29, 2015 Report this

  • Scal1024

    Irrational fear? Dave that's nonsense. The truth is although there are many responsible gun owners, there are many people who SHOULD NOT be given the right to carry. This whole issue is a pissing contest derived from people who live in constant fear. What was the last local issue that made you say "I wish I had my gun"?

    The argument that " bad guys will get the guns anyways " is one of the most misinformed points of this debate. Addicts will get heroin if they want it too, right? Should we relax illicit drug laws as well? Since there just going to do it anyways.

    In no way whatsoever, should we be making the process easier for people to obtain a gun. Not in my community, not in my state. You folks (Stacia Petri and her 3 stooges) need to find some other issue to harp on (snowy sidewalks???....oh wait you've done that already too). The Stacia Facebook page might be the biggest political dumpster fire our state has seen since Clay Pell. Its over Stacia, people finally know what a lying fraud you really are.

    Sunday, February 1, 2015 Report this

  • Mydaus

    We let too many politicians get away with calling things privileges! Concealed carry is a right. There should be no request process. But since there is it should also be very difficult to be denied. No one man should be able to decide who should not carry without overwhelming cause. Additionally our elected representatives are there in city council to represent us. We are their boss, not the other way around. If you are afraid of firearms, deal with it like you would any other phobia, don't try to tell us to change our behavior because of your dysfunction.

    Monday, February 2, 2015 Report this