Monday night, the Warwick Republican Town Committee hosted a panel discussion on gun legislation bills currently under consideration in the General Assembly. Providing insight about these proposals were Senate Minority Leader Jessica De la Cruz, Representative David Place, and East Greenwich resident and gun rights advocate Glenn Valentine.
Here in East Greenwich, the crime rate is low compared to other communities, but we are not immune from threats. Recently, an armed robbery suspect from Connecticut fled to East Greenwich where he was arrested. And last year, a New Hampshire man attempted a home invasion at two EG residences where homeowners used firearms to repel the attacker. Pending gun legislation aims to ban assault style weapons while other bills would affect the right of gun owners to obtain and use a concealed carry permit. Let’s take a look at these proposals.
Concealed Carry Bills
House Bill 5654 would prohibit local police departments from issuing a concealed carry permit to out-of-state residents who have a permit in their home state. In contrast, Senate Bill 0146, a mixed partisan bill, would allow reciprocity for concealed carry permits issued by other states to be valid in Rhode Island. And House Bill 5935, sponsored by Rep. Richard Fascia, a Johnston Republican and retired Providence police officer, expands firearm rights to recognize out-of-state carry permits, authorizes weapons carried during emergency evacuation, and establishes an appeal process for denied permits.
Currently, the state is a patchwork of municipalities, each with its own ordinance that dictates how a person may obtain this permit. Some towns charge hundreds of dollars, and the wait time to obtain the permit can be over a year long. Rhode Island Republican lawmakers have introduced Senate Bill 0124 that would enable concealed carry for properly trained residents who are legally allowed to possess firearms and are over the age of 21. Senate Bill 0065 would create an appeal process for those who have been denied a carry permit.
Proposed Assault-Style Weapons Ban
House Bill 5436, sponsored by East Greenwich Democrat and State Rep. for House District 30 Justine Caldwell, would ban the manufacture, sale, or transfer of ‘assault-style weapons’ beginning Jan. 1, 2026. Violators would face up to ten years in prison, a fine of up to $10K, and weapon forfeiture. These weapons are defined based on their features, such as the ability to receive detachable magazines and stocks, bayonet mount, and barrel shrouds. There is a companion bill in the Senate, 0359.
Proponents of the ban argue that the legislation would help prevent tragic mass shootings, such a Sandy Hook and Parkland, as described in this recent LTE in EG News. The writer states that the majority of Rhode Islanders support this ban. She is referring to the AFL-CIO February telephone survey of 400 people which argues that 64% of Rhode Islanders favor it. Other lobbying groups, such as Moms Demand Action and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, are also behind the proposal. The writer states that the majority of legislators support it, and the governor included it in his budget. The LTE also mentions that both Connecticut and Massachusetts already have a ban on assault-style weapons.
East Greenwich resident Glenn Valentine argues that this legislation would not prevent mass shooting events. Instead, he believes it will impact the firearms currently owned by the 200K gun owners in Rhode Island. He says the legislation conflates fully automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns), which are already illegal in Rhode Island and very heavily regulated at the federal level, with the semiautomatic firearms owned by nearly all gun owners. It would affect any semiautomatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun if it were fitted with any number of features that the bill’s sponsor deems to improve the firearm’s lethality. According to Valentine, this suggests that gun owners should be left with firearms that are less controllable and more difficult and dangerous for the owner to operate.
For example, the bill defines an assault weapon as a semiautomatic handgun that exceeds 50 ounces. Glenn explains that adding an optic to almost any handgun would push it over this limit. An optic serves the purpose of making the shooter more likely to hit a target-as opposed to missing it. One shotgun specifically listed in the legislation qualifies as an assault weapon because it has a folding stock. The sponsor claims that the folding stock makes it more concealable, even though it still measures 32 inches when folded. Glenn argues it’s about as concealable as a yard stick. Additionally, any semiautomatic shotgun with a capacity exceeding six rounds is classified as an assault weapon, which includes many semiautomatic shotguns. Furthermore, gun rights proponents argue that many of these features were created for safety. For example, barrel shrouds prevent people from burning their hands while firing a weapon.
Valentine says, as for rifles, the bill classifies any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine as an assault weapon if it has a pistol grip, foregrip, barrel shroud, threaded barrel, adjustable stock, or the ability to attach a bayonet. This effectively includes most semiautomatic rifles. The only exception is for rifles with a fixed magazine, which would be exempt from the legislation as long as the capacity does not exceed ten rounds.
According to Valentine, the irony is that the focus of this bill, the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, remains perfectly legal to purchase, own, and transfer if it has a fixed magazine. It can even have all the prohibited features outlined in the bill, yet it can be converted to accept a detachable magazine in less than ten seconds, something a person with felonious intent might do, but not a law-abiding gun owner. He says this could put the law-abiding East Greenwich resident at a disadvantage.
Assault-style weapons purchased or owned prior to the ban would be exempt, but this legislation would dictate that they must be registered with their owners’ local police department or the Rhode Island State Police, with the owner absorbing the $25 per firearm registration fee. However, this would be unconstitutional because Rhode Island General Law § 11-47-41 states, “No government agency of this state or its political subdivisions shall keep or cause to be kept any list or register of privately owned firearms or any list or register of the owners of those firearms; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to firearms which have been used in committing any crime of violence, nor to any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence.” As a result of widespread pushback by thousands of gun owners who demonstrated at the State House and sent testimony in March, sponsors of the bill say they plan to eliminate this aspect, but as of now, no changes have been made. Rep. Place explained last night that the Police Chiefs Association does not support a gun registry.
Ultimately, gun rights proponents advocate for the Constitutional right of people to protect themselves and their families against criminals who are already not concerned with following the laws on guns or anything else. In response to the proposed weapons bans, many town councils across Rhode Island have declared their communities Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities including Burrillville, Exeter, Foster, Glocester, Hopkinton, Lincoln, North Providence, Tiverton, and West Greenwich. Also, the Charlestown Town Council will be considering making this resolution in May. While Democrats characterize their legislation as not banning firearms, just banning features on firearms, Senator De la Cruz Monday night called this “a backdoor ban on the Second Amendment.”
Our elected representatives often state that they don’t hear from constituents enough about proposed legislation. You may send this pre-written email to Rep. Evan Shanley and Rep. Justine Caldwell. Send this email to Sen. Bridget Valverde. Feel free to modify the body of the message and be sure to write your name and town at the end of the email.
