Non-Political RI Gun Law Question

Submitted by provendumb t3_z5fwh2 in RhodeIsland

I want this to be as non-political as possible please. I own a firearm that has a magazine with a capacity that is more than 10 rounds. That is how it came when I bought it. Will I now face potential fines and jail time come December 21st because of this law? Isn’t this law going affect nearly all of RI gun owners? I cannot order a 10 or less capacity magazine for this firearm as they are not made, and I understand that I cannot even modify the magazine I own because it could still be modified to again hold more than 10. Is there any solution or work around to this (legally)?

62

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Steveesq t1_ixwpqus wrote

RI attorney here. As of the date... it isn't just fines... it's felonies. For EACH AND EVERY magazine over 10 rnds - 5yrs in prison, $5,000 fine. There is NO GRANDFATHER clause. Mere possession is a felony.

Yes there is a pending lawsuit... but it is essentially waiting on a similar case pending in the 9th federal circuit. The law in ri is unconstitutional on its face (7 clear violations), and is also in direct conflict with the US Supreme Court decision in "Bruen" which is the controlling standard.

From a legal standpoint, I would advise Not to turn anything in. The law is unconstitutional on its face, and any law in direct contradiction to the Constitution is null and void. This law will almost definitely be overturned as written, But the danger here is if you get caught with a magazine before it's overturned.

58

bigbadape t1_ixwvcp1 wrote

It’s a shame, I lost all mine in a boating accident recently.

35

anon45564556 t1_ixx1z7s wrote

Massachusetts has had a capacity ban for years and no one has successfully overturned that. So why would RI be different?

9

Steveesq t1_ixx2kw4 wrote

Simple... there is a new Supreme Court case from this summer that changes the standard. The California AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) is set to be decided within the next month or so... and it looks like it will be overturned.

The MA AWB is a carbon copy of CA. If the court rules the CA AWB is unconditional under this new standard... then ALL AWBs are by definition unconstitutional. I belive the MA ban is being challenged as well under this new standard but I'm not sure.

15

glennjersey t1_ixx7lb1 wrote

Small caveat.

The CA mag ban is under jurisdiction of the 9CA. A ruling there is not binding to anyone outside of that jurisdiction.

It would be great case law, but we'd need a victory in the 1CA to affect MA and RI.

3

glennjersey t1_ixx2dbt wrote

NYSRPA v. Bruen. Recent SCOTUS decision that not only got rid of the two step interest balancing judicial precedent, but also noted that the 2A is protected hlby historical analogs to the revolutionary period.

Show me a mag ban from pre civil war era?

The tl;dr is unless there were analogous gun laws on the books when the constitution was drafted/ratified, the gun law is unconstitutional.

That means no more AWBs or Mag bans in the near future, but the courts move at a snails pace.

9

pbNANDjelly t1_ixxnwvj wrote

You're a real lawyer giving out legal advice on the internet??

1

Steveesq t1_ixxq121 wrote

Actually... i am

9

pbNANDjelly t1_ixxqdax wrote

Alright, dope. I just kind of assumed a lawyer wouldn't advise strangers on the internet to take legal risks 🤔 What if this goes sideways for OP? Or someone reading?

Thanks for providing info on the subject

2

Steveesq t1_ixxrmjs wrote

It isn't really "advice"... it's my opinion. When someone pays my fee... then it's real advice.

This is opinionated information

14

koidrieyez t1_ixvv3ra wrote

There is currently a lawsuit ongoing to stop this law form going into effect. Are you sure there are no 10 round mags available? Check out https://gunmagwarehouse.com/ they have a good selection. You face possible criminal charges if you are found in possession of it but they aren't going to raid your house looking for it.

46

kyle_spectrum t1_ixw0r8h wrote

Gunmagwarehouse won't ship to ri partially because hr 1808 and the mG bans. A lot of online retailers are just staying away.

18

koidrieyez t1_ixw96pc wrote

Just put three 7 round mags for a CZ P10 and it took me right to check out with a RI address.

3

kyle_spectrum t1_ixwa7qk wrote

I checked out and paid too but got a cancelation order after

6

kyle_spectrum t1_ixwa5vk wrote

Hmm I tried ordering when the laws were passed and got an email saying they were waiting for clarification. Still wouldn't do business with then after that.

1

emaildylan99 t1_ixypr4i wrote

I order from them all the time. Just got 5 10/30 mags delivered to RI.

1

the_falconator t1_ixwno5n wrote

Yeah, it sucks as the law is written it will make you a felon. It's pretty likely that the law will get an injunction against it while the legal battle plays out. I don't know any gun owner that plans to get rid of theirs.

28

psycho_candy0 t1_ixy5bmg wrote

This issue seems ripe enough to make it's way up top even to the supreme court imho, it'd be interesting to see if they'd strike down infringements on capacity laws, given their recent decisions, but I'm not entirely that optimistic.

9

topher352 t1_ixwj0c3 wrote

It's quite refreshing to see a post like this with the majority of responses keeping the politics out of it.

27

Beezlegrunk t1_ixxv343 wrote

Right, because the pro-gun responses aren’t political at all — just the anti-gun ones …

−22

Coincel_pro t1_ixvurkw wrote

You will be a felon when the grace period ends if you are ever caught with the magazine. You'll have to at minimum sell off the magazine or destroy it.

Yes, the law will affect nearly all RI gun owners. r/RIGuns has fairly regular posts updating some of the current legal challenges to the new law but those have not resulted in any stay or anything yet so as of today Dec 21 is still the last day to own it legally.

The law mentions that magazines can be "irreversibly modified" to hold 10rds or less, but there is no clear indication as what would be allowed as "irreversible" so basically you could try to modify it and then see what the court says if anyone feels like pressing charges against you to see what will stick. If you're not white I wouldn't suggest you try that one out with the police / courts.

21

glennjersey t1_ixvza6l wrote

Sounds like you would have been or currently are a perfect candidate for a lawsuit.

Pretty regular updates over on r/RIguns regarding the active lawsuit. Perhaps you would be interested in becoming a part of it you certainly have standing. (IANAL, and have no affiliation with the active suits against the state. I am just a concerned RI gun owner who stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night.)

To answer your question more directly, you would have to block the mag or modify it in a way that prevents loading more than 10 rounds, regardless of how it shipped from the factory. Folks in NY/NJ/CT have been dealing with this for decades, and that's typically the simplest solution.

19

Swamp_yankee_ninja t1_ixx0yxc wrote

This is a great question, the short answer is many will likely become potential felons for Christmas. The law doesn’t pass constitutional muster, however until it moves through the courts firearm owners in Rhode Island are under their thumb. It can be pretty scary being a law abiding citizen one day and being jammed up on felony charges the next because you forgot a 15rd magazine in your range bag. It’s best to air of the side of caution and sanity to remove all the 11 plus round magazines you have in your collection and take them charter fishing before December 21. After the ban is repealed you can send a scuba diver down to retrieve them.

18

smokejaguar t1_ixykd6c wrote

It also has some serious ambiguity in the wording of the legislation. While it gives members of the National Guard an exemption, it states "when authorized" in the legislation. Does that mean a member serving during drill and activations only? What if one of my guys forgets a standard capacity magazine in their backpack? Will they be a felon while driving home from drill?

This is what happens when knee jerk legislation gets rammed through the general assembly.

11

Swamp_yankee_ninja t1_ixyklj0 wrote

The wording on all 3 bills they passed was terrible, the lawyers in the basement on smith hill must have been up all night drinking.

5

mightynifty_2 t1_ixy9zlr wrote

There really should be a law that mandates the govt pay anyone market value (x1.25-1.5 for convenience) for any goods made illegal without a grandfather clause. Absolutely ridiculous otherwise.

11

RobotUnicorn046 t1_ixzts26 wrote

Buy back programs a such a great offer! Especially with a “don’t ask don’t tell” sort of policy where any accessory/firearm, serial number or not, could be exchanged. Could be a lucrative trade for those that may need the cash and have access to blackmarket dealings

−1

1Certified1 t1_ixzzvx0 wrote

Until you realize they are easily exploited by selling $2 makeshift guns in bulk for profit and the fact that for real firearms the price is never even close to what the gun is worth unless it’s a cheap hipoint.

5

RobotUnicorn046 t1_iy0wux5 wrote

What you reap in societal benefit is arguably worth it in my eyes but we can agree to disagree

−2

KindlyBrain6109 t1_ixwwyg1 wrote

when in doubt have a "boating accident" and "lose" it in the water

5

haikusbot t1_ixwwzs6 wrote

When in doubt have a

"boating accident" and "lose"

It in the water

- KindlyBrain6109

^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^Learn more about me.

^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")

5

captain_carrot t1_ixxkhxd wrote

This all seems well and good but when my carry guns all carry 10+... I'm not going to stop carrying or subject myself to a restriction that lessens MY odds should I need it, but I'm also not looking forward to any legal issues that might arise should that be the case. But I'd rather deal with legal issues than the alternative.

5

RobotUnicorn046 t1_ixyleq2 wrote

If you need more than 10 rounds for self defense I suggest more training at a range!

−4

KindlyBrain6109 t1_ixznv72 wrote

If you think criminals are going to limit themselves to 10 round mags when they are committing other felonies already I suggest more training in logic and reasoning. Why intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage to them?

8

RobotUnicorn046 t1_ixzsy3a wrote

Does it take more than a few rounds from someone with training to stop a perpetrator? Didn’t thinks so 😄

−5

KindlyBrain6109 t1_iy051u9 wrote

Tell that to any military ever <3 The 2nd amendment is for more than just hunting and stopping burglars.

When the US government stops using magazines larger than 10 rounds, then maybe the citizens won't need them either.

4

RobotUnicorn046 t1_iy0x1zf wrote

Again, no civilian militia could challenge the US forces.

1

KindlyBrain6109 t1_iy0ycdq wrote

The last few decades of military engagements involving the US disprove that statement pretty soundly. Shit we lost the Vietnam war against poorly trained, under equipped farmers.

4

1Certified1 t1_ixzzmu6 wrote

The point of the 2nd amendment is not only for hunting and self defense against “normal criminals” it’s main reason is for the defense against a tyrannical government and for the power to remain in the peoples hands.

1

RobotUnicorn046 t1_iy0wr03 wrote

I think it’s delusional that any civilian militia could do anything against the current US forces. Drones are op

3

1Certified1 t1_iy0z98z wrote

Look at Afghanistan, Vietnam, and even currently Myanmar. Soldiers in the US will not start drone striking people from their country because the government wants to take away their guns lol. Believe it or not but people in the US military are not actually robots and have independent thoughts.

8

the_falconator t1_iy0hprw wrote

How about when 4 guys break into your house because they hit the wrong house looking for drug money? That happened right here in Providence.

8

RobotUnicorn046 t1_iy0x7lb wrote

How about it? Head, chest for each of them and then 2 more to spare! Shotguns tend to be better for home defense in those situations

−5

glennjersey t1_iy14z3d wrote

When was the last time you did any force on force training or shot under duress? Since you seem to think its so easy.

8

Jmac3366 t1_ixwh9z0 wrote

As of right now the only solution is to add a block to the magazine but there are lawsuits over it

4

mrbisthebest t1_ixvzoo5 wrote

I believe you can buy magazine blocks to bring them into compliance with the new regulation. They'll limit the capacity accordingly.

3

Rock0322 t1_ixw3hql wrote

however those are not permanent modifications, which would not satisfy the new legislation

13

glennjersey t1_ixw3xu1 wrote

As the state has not put forth any guidelines as to what constitutes permanent modification, the onus is actually on the courts to decide.

14

Rock0322 t1_ixw49dm wrote

That's a fair point. I don't envy the first person that has to fight that fight.

10

Yz-Guy t1_ixwgnu9 wrote

Kind of a grey area. Bc permanent isn't really a definite state. As a mechanic and machinist. You can fix or modify almost anything. A weld may be permanent to some but not others if you have a grinder. However a rivot or tamper proof bolt is permanent without the right tools.

6

glennjersey t1_ixx7oo2 wrote

>Kind of a grey area

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

5

Yz-Guy t1_ixxl9bf wrote

Damn. When did real life become a Bethesda game

3

scrimalpream_ t1_ixwfnw7 wrote

You must have something pretty rare if there are no 10’s availabe. Otherwise Id just skip the headache and buy 10s. If you were to go the modification route, you could block it to 10 rounds and tack weld the base plate on, but it’s still questionable legally and can’t really open it up again easily.

3

scrimalpream_ t1_ixzo04p wrote

I’d add that, if neither of those options work and you really want to hold onto it, you can probably find a safe deposit box or something in southern NH/VT. When I was living in Mass. I kept my banned mags at a storage facility in Manchester. Nothing illegal about it.

1

BMorris2526 t1_ixx52ze wrote

This law will do nothing to stop violent crime. However, making lawful citizens felons seemed to go over well with the voters.

3

brenden77 t1_ixyu3ki wrote

You're making this post political. OP posses a valid non-political question.

1

coffeemaker3 t1_ixzjhi7 wrote

SCOTUS should have added a coda to the end of the NY case in Bruen stating that Constitutional Carry is no the law of the land. It was a golden opportunity that they missed.

3

silverhammer96 t1_ixwa2oi wrote

Worst case scenario, anyone know of police departments doing firearm buy back programs?

2

TheRhodeIslandFamily t1_ixwg33t wrote

Bristol

−6

Physical-Half-5424 t1_ixwpoln wrote

The law requires you to surrender them to a police dept, dispose or modify them Police are exempt from the law and surrendering them to a department will undoubtedly only enhance their personal collection. Bristol is not doing a buyback and I'm unaware of any departments carrying out such a thing. Sadly this poster is SOL, if they don't like the laws the only option is to vote out the people who forced this law through. My recommendation is sell the firearm and sell your magazines to people out of this state.

8

rhodynative t1_ixwexju wrote

Essentially, it would be a felony, if anyone ever asked, but unless you’re being stupid, pulled over, or have a particularly gone hating relative you should be fine

2

tilario t1_ixwjg03 wrote

can you ask your local police department what your options are? or have a friend ask on your behalf if you thinking asking directly puts you on their radar.

2

CrankBot t1_ixx7ll9 wrote

Sorry to hear you aren't easily able to get compliant mags, that stinks.

If you haven't yet looked up Mag Blocks you can check them, and if it's epoxied in then it would be considered permanent. Some gunsmiths can also press in a pin to make it compliant although that is probably pricey.

If you don't want to conveniently "lose" your magazines prior to the deadline you might be lucky enough to have family in another state without a capacity ban who can hold them for you?

I'm any case, good luck.

1

Coincel_pro t1_ixzallo wrote

I agree with your post but I am very wary of what will actually be defined as "permanent" since the law does not spell that out well at all. Guess who gets to be the test case? The 1st person arrested with a mag block. Then you get to see if a jury of your peers decides if your epoxy job is good enough to mean you broke no laws, or congrats now you're a felon, pay $5000 and lose all your guns to boot.

4

CrankBot t1_ixzckq0 wrote

That's 100% understandable if you or OP or anyone else do not want to take that chance. In that case OP should just sell the mags, put the gun in storage and buy something with easily obtainable compliant magazines.

2

thentangler t1_ixz86gw wrote

I mean if states are now free to make abortions illegal and even pay people to rat on someone who even thinks of abortion resulting in jail time, what’s to stop other states from doing the same ridiculousness with things such as gun control. To each their own I guess! Just move to a different state that aligns with your views… Country fragmentation here we come!!

−5

RatFink_0123 t1_ixvx1op wrote

Just piling on here but how do you prove you disposed of the deadly and scary mags? I just don’t trust any of them. So hypothetically, what’s stopping you from just leaving them home and not carrying them? The law is against owning, right? So if they know something of mine came with deadly capacity mags, how can I show I no longer own them? Do I need to go to an FFL to ship to a place that honors the constitution?

−18

DirtCrazykid t1_ixw7l9s wrote

You don't prove it because you don't need to? They won't go knocking on doors asking if you got rid of yours, the law just makes it so it's a crime if you're caught with one.

9

Null_Error7 t1_ixw9nxj wrote

If you’re charged with a domestic or a neighbor reports you under the red flag laws they will search your house, find them, and give you 10 years

9

winter-14 t1_ixwe36m wrote

Hillary will personally come to your door and take all your firearms, Bengazi laptops, and any Ben and Jerry's that's in your freezer. She and all her liberal, hippy, Democrat supporters, will then start eating babies on your firearm!

/s

−18

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixvv1j6 wrote

Why do you need a work around? Follow the law re guns and get rid of it.

−54

RatFink_0123 t1_ixvwia3 wrote

Dude ... he’s concerned because he can’t find a 10 round mag for his firearm ...not because he is a scofflaw.

28

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixvyry3 wrote

Didn’t say he was. But the gun won’t be legal after dec 21st. Why look for a work around to the obvio solution?

−34

ProvBroker t1_ixvznhc wrote

The gun will still be legal to own, it’s specifically the component that holds the ammunition and assists feeding it into the chamber (the magazine) that will be illegal.

19

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixw0ibs wrote

So without the illegal component the gun is non functional I assume? Get a different gun.

−32

lelekfalo t1_ixw132f wrote

Tell me you know nothing about firearms without telling me you know nothing about firearms.

36

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixw24wl wrote

Is that not factually correct tho? Go ahead I’ll wait.

−2

Billiam201 t1_ixw7iod wrote

You won't be waiting long. No, it's not correct.

17

ProvBroker t1_ixwgu3a wrote

Lol, no it’s not factually correct. Honestly commentary like what you are contributing betrays a complete ignorance of firearm construction and function.

I won’t berate you like the others, but this sort of know nothing commentary leaves pro gun-control legislators and proponents mouths all of the time, which only serves to make the folks who understand the subject matter uncomfortable about accepting the proposals, as it makes it clear the gun control people have absolutely no idea how the thing they are regulating even works.

It’s very important that we have thoughtful and nuanced regulation around the matter so that we can protect important constitutional rights while mitigating tragedies and violence involving deadly weaponry.

16

MajorDrGhastly t1_ixwffog wrote

i cant imagine ever embarrassing myself so hard as you have just done. just go to bed friend.

9

Yz-Guy t1_ixwgqxk wrote

This was a roller coaster. Lol

2

anonymous_troII t1_ixwtv47 wrote

No dumb dumb. It's not factual. There will be an injunction. The law is unconstitutional, see the response from the lawyer above. There is precedent showing this will be overturned.

7

glennjersey t1_ixw24im wrote

Thats literally one of the main points if the current lawsuit against the state.

OP is being deprived of his legally owned property because of a likely unconstitutional law they passed.

10

Guyincognito4269 t1_ixw7ufx wrote

Who's taking it? He still has it. My car can go over 100 mph, am I legally being deprived of it because I can't go that fast? Get a 10 rounder and go on with your life.

−20

glennjersey t1_ixw91hw wrote

That's the point. He can't get a 10 rounder.

Not every firearm has 10 round mags available.

Further - without the magazine the firearm is operable useless. Many of them won't even fire without a magazine inserted (as a safety feature). So your car analogy is more apt if you said someone was taking the gas tank out of your car. Sure they're not taking your car, but they're rendering it pretty useless, no?

8

Guyincognito4269 t1_ixw94ki wrote

What kind of weapon is it?

−11

glennjersey t1_ixw9o8c wrote

OP has not said, other than;

>I cannot order a 10 or less capacity magazine for this firearm as they are not made

One of the young senators made mention of a similar situation during the joke that was the hearings before they passed the law. This is not going to be an uncommon occurrence.

8

provendumb OP t1_ixwf8id wrote

Pistol

7

Dopey-NipNips t1_ixwr5wj wrote

But you won't say what kind because you'll get 50 links showing how easy compliance with the law is

−6

sailri t1_ixz1j34 wrote

Yes you are. Because in your scenario your engine is capable of pushing your (over $10,000?) car over the speed limit. And having it in your car in your possession would make you a felon.

3

sailri t1_ixz1td6 wrote

You could just get rid of the engine of course. Isn’t that free? Sure it is. But the cost to replace the engine? And if you can’t the cost to replace the car? That’s taking.

3