Rhode Island lawmakers pass a “useless” assault weapons ban that even gun control advocates criticize as the “weakest in the country,” showcasing progressive governance at its most ineffective.
Key Takeaways
- Rhode Island has approved a scaled-back assault weapons ban that prohibits sales but not possession of certain firearms, with violators facing up to 10 years in prison or a $10,000 fine.
- The bill passed with a divided Senate vote of 25-11 (with seven Democrats opposing) and House vote of 43-28, revealing significant bipartisan concerns.
- Even gun control advocates like David Hogg and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence have criticized the legislation as the “weakest assault weapons ban in the country.”
- The legislation appears to be an emotional reaction rather than a fact-based solution, with multiple Republican amendments rejected during the deliberative process.
- If signed by Governor McKee as promised, Rhode Island would become the 11th state with such a ban, despite constitutional concerns and questionable effectiveness.
A Half-Measure Approach to Gun Control
Rhode Island’s Democratic-controlled legislature has pushed through a heavily modified assault weapons ban that prohibits the sale and manufacturing of certain semi-automatic rifles while allowing current owners to keep their firearms without registration. The bill, sponsored by Senator Lou DiPalma, passed the Senate with a 25-11 vote, facing opposition from seven Democrats and four Republicans. The House followed with a 43-28 approval after Speaker Joe Shekarchi quickly scheduled a vote following the Senate’s decision, demonstrating the coordinated effort to rush this legislation through despite substantive opposition.
What makes this legislation particularly notable is that it has managed to disappoint advocates on both sides of the gun debate. The bill underwent significant modifications during the legislative process, narrowing definitions of banned weapons and removing registration requirements for grandfathered firearms. These changes have led to the official renaming of the measure from an “assault weapons ban” to the more tepid “Unlawful Sale of Prohibited Firearms,” reflecting its diminished scope and impact.
Even Gun Control Advocates Criticize the Measure
In a remarkable development that highlights the performative nature of this legislation, prominent gun control advocates have publicly criticized the bill as inadequate. The Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) expressed frustration with what they view as a severely weakened version of the original proposal. This criticism underscores how the bill represents political theater rather than substantive policy aimed at addressing root causes of violence in society.
“In a state where all of our general officers and the majority of legislators in both the House and Senate, including the Speaker and Senate President, are gun safety champions, it makes absolutely no sense that we have to accept this severely weakened version of the assault weapons ban,” said RICAGV Executive Director Melissa Carden.
Despite this criticism from fellow progressives, Governor Dan McKee has already confirmed his intention to sign the bill, highlighting the political rather than practical motivations behind the legislation. McKee’s enthusiasm seems disconnected from the reality that even those who champion such restrictions find this particular version inadequate, suggesting a focus on political optics over substantive change.
Constitutional Concerns and Practical Limitations
Critics of the legislation point out that the bill is based more on emotional reactions than factual analysis of gun violence. The firearms being targeted are incorrectly described as “high-powered” when they function identically to many hunting rifles that remain legal. Furthermore, the constitutionality of such bans remains highly questionable, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions reinforcing Second Amendment protections. This approach exemplifies how progressive governance often prioritizes emotional appeals over constitutional considerations.
“I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence. I included an assault weapons ban in my budget for this very reason — and as a result, tonight we saw progress,” said Gov. Dan McKee.
The deliberative process itself raises concerns about how progressive policies are formulated. Multiple amendments proposed by Senate Republicans were summarily rejected without meaningful consideration, reflecting a one-sided approach to legislation. When government fails to incorporate diverse perspectives and engage in robust debate, the resulting policies inevitably suffer from blind spots and unintended consequences. This pattern of governance ultimately undermines public confidence in legislative institutions and their ability to address complex societal challenges.
The Pattern of Reactive Governance
Rhode Island’s assault weapons ban exemplifies a troubling pattern in progressive governance: the tendency to implement sweeping, generalized solutions without adequate consideration of their effectiveness or consequences. Rather than addressing the complex social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to violence, such reactive governance prioritizes the appearance of action over substantive results. The bill’s passage, despite criticism from advocates on both sides, demonstrates how this approach often produces legislation that satisfies no one while failing to address the root problems it purports to solve.
“The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons. This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all,” said Isabel Aptman from Everytown for Gun Safety.
As Rhode Island becomes the 11th state to implement such restrictions, the predictable pattern of progressive governance continues: emotional reaction, followed by hastily crafted policy, culminating in legislation that addresses symptoms rather than causes. This approach not only fails to create meaningful solutions but risks undermining constitutional rights while diverting resources from more effective interventions. For conservative voters concerned about both public safety and constitutional freedoms, this latest example of progressive governance offers a stark reminder of the importance of demanding evidence-based, carefully considered approaches to complex social issues.
