Is Puerto Rico now a "Shall Issue" State...er Commonwealth?

[ELB]

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh points out an "intermediate appellate" court decision recognizing a right to carry guns in public places. The actual decision is written in Spanish; Volokh quotes another law professor who summarizes the case.

Some excerpts:

Court says that the Commonwealth government’s position is that having arms is a privilege and not a right. Court rejects this [first] on grounds that licensing statute states that fear for safety is a valid reason for getting a license to carry and that trial court did not have authority to specify criteria other than fear on part of applicant. Fear on part of applicant is essentially determined by applicant. If I am reading decision correctly (and my Spanish is imperfect) intermediate appellate court is essentially converting Puerto Rico’s statute into a shall issue statute ...

Second this Court is adopting a reading of Heller and McDonald as giving constitutional protection to a right to bear or carry. Goes into Scalia’s sensitive places as evidence that some places are not sensitive and therefore there is a right to carry in those places. Court goes on to incorporate second amendment in Puerto Rico. ...

Volokh post here:http://volokh.com/2011/05/11/puerto-ric ... ic-places/

Court decision (in Spanish) here: http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/upl ... nausse.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JJVP]

I read the original decision in spanish, I'm originally from Puerto Rico, so no problem with the spanish. What I understood was the the original court had ruled that the plaintiff who was denied a concealed carry permit was denied the permit because he had not been victim of a crime. The appeals court ruled that just being in fear was sufficient. He did not have to be a victim of a crime before he was eligible for a CCW. I don't think this means that it will make PR a shall issue state. At least that is my interpretation. But it is written in legalese, which is just as bad in spanish as is in english, and since I am not a lawyer, what I think it says and what it actually says might be very different.

[ELB]

Thanks for the comment, it is good to get a second reading by someone fluent in Spanish. It appears that you and the professor quoted above read the text of the decision the same way -- that PR law only requires that a person state he is in fear in order to get a CCW license. The authorities cannot impose additional criteria.

I think the professor's point was not that PR officially becomes a "shall issue" state, but since the only one who can judge if the applicant is "in fear" is the applicant, then the authorities must issue a permit to anyone who says they have fear -- basically anyone who is not otherwise disqualified. This effectively makes PR a "shall issue" jurisdiction, because as long as you meet all the qualifications, you get the license -- no discretion on the part of authorities.

I'll bet the authorities didn't see this one coming...

[Bullwhip]

PR is shall issue for license to own and supposed to be shall issue for license to carry for anyone who shows they have reason to fear for their safety. I think living in PR is good reason to fear for your safety.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=57" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;