Providence, RI – A federal judge has ruled that Rhode Island’s requirement for showing “need” to openly carry a firearm does not violate the Second Amendment—handing a win to the state’s attorney general and a setback to local gun rights advocates.
U.S. District Judge William E. Smith dismissed a constitutional challenge filed by seven residents, including Michael O’Neil, a prominent Second Amendment lobbyist and firearms instructor. The plaintiffs, all of whom currently possess concealed carry permits issued by local authorities, argued that they were unlawfully denied so-called “unrestricted permits” by the Attorney General’s office—permits that allow both concealed and open carry.
The Heart of the Lawsuit: Open Carry Denied
At issue was a Rhode Island law that grants local officials the authority to issue concealed carry permits to anyone who meets statutory criteria—these are considered “shall issue.” In contrast, the Attorney General’s office may issue unrestricted permits—but only “upon a proper showing of need,” a requirement the plaintiffs called arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs argued that this discretionary clause violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights and clashed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which struck down a similar “need-based” permit requirement in New York.
But Judge Smith wasn’t persuaded. “Under Rhode Island law, permits of this nature are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one,” he wrote in a 15-page ruling dated August 1, 2025
Bruen Doesn’t Guarantee Open Carry
In the landmark Bruen ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. However, Smith emphasized that the high court didn’t mandate a right to open carry specifically.
Citing Bruen, Smith explained: “The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation.”
The judge noted that Rhode Island’s permit system merely reverses the historical pattern—allowing concealed carry by default while requiring justification for open carry. “The Firearms Act… limits their right to open carry but leaves unaffected their right to concealed carry,” he wrote
Procedural Due Process Claim Also Falls Flat
The plaintiffs also claimed the “proper showing of need” standard was too vague and violated their right to due process under both the U.S. and Rhode Island Constitutions. Judge Smith rejected those arguments as well, pointing out that the attorney general’s office has issued guidance explaining how need is evaluated, and that denials are subject to judicial review.
“Considering that, in Rhode Island, an unrestricted license is a privilege and not a right, these interpretive safeguards add clarity to the statute and do not mean that the law is impermissibly vague,” Smith ruled
He also dismissed the overbreadth claim, explaining that such challenges don’t apply to Second Amendment cases the way they do in First Amendment law.
What’s Next?
Attorney General Peter Neronha’s office celebrated the ruling. “This decision fully resolves this case in the State’s favor,” spokesperson Tim Rondeau said in a statement, adding that Neronha will “continue to vigorously defend Rhode Island’s gun violence prevention laws to ensure the public safety of all Rhode Islanders.”
But the plaintiffs aren’t backing down.
“We do not agree with his reasoning as it is not in line with the Bruen decision,” said their attorney, Frank Saccoccio. “We will be appealing his decision.”
The case, O’Neil v. Neronha, will likely head to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where gun rights advocates hope to challenge Rhode Island’s restrictive open carry laws on broader Second Amendment grounds.
Editor’s Note: This case reflects the growing tension between state-level gun regulations and federal court rulings post-Bruen. For many gun owners in Rhode Island and beyond, the outcome could determine whether open carry becomes a right—or remains a government-granted privilege.
Rhode Island Sends MSR Ban to Governor Despite Recent SCOTUS Warnings
there should be some punishment for judges that just flat out violate their oath of office and make rulings that do not align with scotus. that citizens have to appeal an obviously unconstitutional ruling should be grounds for removal from office, dare i say treason?
would he rule that you can converse in private but not in public? that you can talk about God in private not in public?
either these black-robed sovereigns are incompetent or evil.
Activist judges present a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to America and must be removed.
Another Jusist that deserves a quick drop from a gallows
What good’s a Supreme Court ruling if lower level judges and politicians (Hochul and her farce of a ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act-post Bruen) can flagrantly ignore the Supreme Court rulings?
What’s the point in 2A movement going to court, if the Supreme Court won’t enforce it’s rulings? Why can’t US Marshal’s be ordered by the Supreme Court to arrest judges and politicians who violate Supreme Court rulings? Why can’t those violators be fined or sent to prison, after a trial?
If we peasants violate a court ruling, we’re screwed. But why to THEY get a pass?
SCOTUS and the DOJ should issue letters of marque and reprisal to citizens, for the arrest and seizure of activist judges and their assets.
Can this judge be charged under 42 U.S.C.§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights? Or does he have immunity? Jon Roland: “Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the… Read more »
F ederal judge
The way I see it, there are only two choices we peons have to make our leaders hear us: ballots or bullets. We can change leaders by voting them out, or taking them out. Now before the FBI starts planning their raid; at 68 I’ve been fighting terminal cancer for almost 20 years, getting the mail means walking across the street (a feat I can do most day, but that’s about it…) and I’m done throwing bombs and making threats. Just sayin’… And here in Kommiefornia the demonrats have screwed up the voting districts to the extent that NO ONE… Read more »