With virtually no debate on Wednesday afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amended gun ban bill, sending the legislation to the floor and almost certain passage. 

The vote in the ten-member Judiciary Committee was 8 in favor and 6 opposed, with members of Senate leadership exercising their legislative authority to sit and vote in any committee they chose. Senate President Valerie Lawson was a co-sponsor of the original gun ban bill and was on hand to vote in favor, but in a somewhat surprising move Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone also voted to adopt the substitute language and move the bill to the Senate floor. 

Ciccone is an FFL, and up to now has been pretty good on Second Amendment issues, especially for a New England Democrat. The relatively modest changes to the bill (along with a considerable amount of arm twisting by Senate leadership, I suspect) were enough to convince a few other Democrat opponents of the measure to switch their votes, and though gun control activists in Rhode Island have criticized the changes, arguing that they have the votes for a more restrictive bill, I’m sure they’re thrilled to see S 359 approved by the committee. 

***UPDATE*** 

According to the Boston Globe, the one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee to switch their vote was Senator John P. Burke, who was unopposed in both the primary in the general election when he was lastelected to the Senate in 2024. In 2022, though, just 1,000 votes separated Burke from his Republican opponent. Next year Burke needs to face true pro-2A candidates, both in the Democratic primary and the general election.

It remains to be seen if the changes to the bill will remain in place once the full Senate gets ahold of the bill. There’s conceivably enough support to amend the measure yet again, this time restoring the original language that would ban almost every centerfire semi-automatic rifle on the market and require existing owners to register their weapons with law enforcement. 

The Globe reports that’s exactly what gun control activists and House Democrats are pushing for, so this “compromise” may not hold up for long. 

***Original post continues below***

Even if the bill doesn’t revert back to its original form, what was adopted today is bad enough. 

he definition of a “prohibited firearm” in the substitute bill now includes semi-automatic shotguns with a fixed magazine capacity of more than six rounds; any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; all semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines holding more than ten rounds; and semi-automatic rifles that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has at least one of the following features:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock;

B) A bayonet mount;

(C) A grenade launcher;

D) A shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, except an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel, which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel. 

(E) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock; or 

(F) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

The bill also bans semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding ten and all semi-automatic firearms that have the ability to be belt-fed. 

The language has been narrowed from what passed the House, which essentially targeted all gas-operated semi-automatic long guns that could accept detachable magazines and included a registry of all existing owners. The registry has gone away, but the bill will still sweep up the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles on the market and make them illegal to sell and transfer in the state; with a potential ten-year prison sentence for manufacturing, selling, transferring, purchasing, or even offering to sell a prohibited firearm. 

This “compromise” doesn’t make any sense, from either a pro-Second Amendment or pro-gun control perspective. The objections from gun owners are obvious; the bill prohibits the sale of some of the most popular and commonly-owned firearms in the country, and squarely violates our Second Amendment rights. But gun control advocates believe that these firearms are “battlefield weapons of war” that “have no place in a civil society”, so why would they be satisfied with a bill that allows these guns to remain in the hands of lawful gun owners? 

The short answer is they’re not satisfied, but they’ll take what they can get this session and revisit the issue again next year.Rhode Island gun owners still need to be wary of any attempt to expand the ban and include a registration requirement during the full Senate debate on S 359, and they should make plans to purchase as many modern sporting rifles as they see fit before it becomes a crime to do so.