Opinion ID: 2094981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Discretionary Gun Permits

Text: We are of the opinion that the licensing statute now under review is discretionary. Significantly, for purposes of a constitutional liberty-interest analysis, § 11-47-18 vests the department with extremely broad discretion to grant or deny a license even when there has been a proper showing of need. Many courts, when confronted with a discretionary licensing statute, decline to construe a protected liberty interest in obtaining a license. See Gonzales v. Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, 665 A.2d 681, 683 (Me.1995) (no constitutionally protected property interest in obtaining a gun permit when there is broad discretion to withhold the license). Likewise in Gifford v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Cal.App.4th 801, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 168-69 (2 Dist.2001), the California Court of Appeals concluded that mandamus does not lie when a state statute grants broad discretion to the licensing authority to issue or refuse to issue a firearms license upon a showing of good cause. In Erdelyi v. O'Brien, 680 F.2d 61 (9th Cir.1982), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that [w]here state law gives the issuing authority broad discretion to grant or deny license applications in a closely regulated field, initial applicants do not have a property right in such licenses [that is] protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 63 (citing Jacobson v. Hannifin, 627 F.2d 177, 180 (9th Cir.1980)). Accordingly, because the statute under consideration vests the Attorney General with discretion to refuse a license even if a person makes a proper showing of need, we are of the opinion that it has no impact on any constitutionally protected liberty interest, nor are we persuaded that the refusal of the Attorney General to issue a permit under the provisions of § 11-47-18 violates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Consequently, although the Firearms Act regulates and prohibits the ownership and possession of numerous weapons, including handguns, the statute includes both mandatory and discretionary licensing provisions that satisfy the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or a shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property. Therefore, due process concerns are not triggered and Mosby is not entitled to a hearing on his initial application filed under § 11-47-18(a). [39]