Rhode Island Moves Forward with Ban on Nearly All Commonly Owned Firearms

Rhode Island legislators likely looked at Colorado’s “Assault Weapons” Ban and then said “hold my beer” when they introduced sweeping legislation in February that would ban nearly all commonly owned firearms, with implied support from Governor Dan McKee.

On May 14, it moved to the next stage when the Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on the “Rhode Island Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025.” Both the house and senate have matching bills, S0359 & H5436, which so broadly defines “assault weapons” as to include even the most common firearms, calls for registration, fees, and extreme penalties for non-compliance.

Owners of firearms meeting the “assault weapon” definition must register (in order to be grandfathered), surrender, transfer, or render them inoperable by December 31, 2026, or face criminal penalties.

The “assault weapons” definition is expanded to include firearms that have various combinations and permutations of features, without any data to support the need for such a ban (regardless of the fact that such a ban is de facto Unconstitutional).

As just one example, the bill bans semi-automatic shotguns with any of the following features:

• A fixed magazine capacity exceeding six rounds
• The ability to accept a detachable magazine (or can be readily modified to accept one) and includes a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any feature functioning as a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand
• A revolving cylinder

Broadly speaking, the bill would ban:

• Most semi-automatic shotguns
• Most semi-automatic rifles
• Most semi-automatic pistols
• Other firearms “modified to function as an assault weapon” or a “combinations of parts from which an assault weapon can be readily assembled” (read: parts).

Of course, an exemption is carved out for law enforcement.

The bill was introduced by Senator Louis DiPalma (D), who claimed it is not the case, when asked if the bill was unconstitutional. As with many disarmament bills, it’s couched in “public safety” language, like this statement from DiPalma:

My take on this is about ensuring we protect Rhode Islanders.

Since the vast majority of gun owners commit no crimes, it begs the question why elected representatives want to disarm their constituents.