Gun permit tiff puts officials' jobs in danger
EXETER, R.I. — This sleepy town of 6,000 doesn't have a police department, and the only firearm violence tends to be directed at deer.
It's an unusual place for a debate over gun control.
Yet this rural community 30 minutes south of Providence has become the latest place where officials are facing consequences for proposals to change gun laws.
Four of the five council members are the subject of a recall election set for Saturday when they angered gun owners with an idea to tweak the way the town issues concealed weapon permits.
“It's frustrating. I'm a gun owner. My sons are hunters. I have no problem with the Second Amendment,” said Councilman Bob Johnson, who, like the others facing recall, is a Democrat.
Earlier this year, the council passed a resolution asking the state's General Assembly to allow the state attorney general to process the permits. Under law, those seeking a permit may apply to the attorney general or their local police.
Since Exeter doesn't have a police department, the job falls to the town clerk.
The four council members argued that the clerk — the town's lone elected sergeant — lacks the resources to conduct proper background checks.
Gun owners said giving the attorney general control would make it harder to get one.
Even though the council's request never got a vote in the Assembly, gun rights supporters began petitioning for a recall, saying the town's leaders had ignored the concerns of hundreds of people who turned out for a meeting on the proposal.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ER knew ill man visiting from Africa, sent him home
- DeLay conviction killed by top court
- Records show Kissinger pursued strategy to attack Cuba
- Hagel orders steps to fix military health care
- Detroit’s emergency manager questioned about bankruptcy plan
- News Alert
- Obama administration blasts Israeli housing project
- White man convicted of murder of black teenager in Jacksonville
- Secret Service chief resigns after security lapses
- MIT: Global Energy Use, CO2 May Double By 2100
- White woman sues sperm bank for giving her donation from black man