R.I. Senate votes to ban sale, purchase of assault-style weapons
The Rhode Island Senate vote tally on amended legislation to ban the sale, purchase, and manufacture of assault-style weapons.
Edward Fitzpatrick
Senators Louis P. DiPalma, the Middletown Democrat who sponsored the Senate version of the bill, noted that assault weapons bills have been introduced for a dozen years without becoming law. 'We need to get this done,' he said. 'We need to get this done today.'
Advertisement
DiPalma noted that a union
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
He said the state of Washington has enacted a similar law banning the sale, purchase and manufacture of assault-style weapons. And he said that if the bill becomes law in Rhode Island, 'the proliferation of assault style weapons will go down precipitously.'
Senator Pamela J. Lauria, a Barrington Democrat, attempted to amend the bill to reflect the House-passed version of the legislation. She said it is crucial to pass a bill that bans possession — and not just sale — of assault weapons, especially now that President Trump's administration is scaling back the federal government's ability to enforce gun laws.
Advertisement
Lauria noted that Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha had backed the House version of the bill, saying he could defend it in court. And she urged senators to 'pass the best possible bill,' including a ban on sale and possession of those guns.
But DiPalma objected to Lauria's amendment, saying it sought to circumvent the committee process that had resulted in the House bill being held for further study in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
New Senate President Valarie J. Lawson, an East Providence Democrat and teachers union president, upheld DiPalma's objection. Lauria challenged Lawson's ruling, and the Senate then voted 25 to 12 to back Lawson's ruling, thereby killing Lauria's amendment.
Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz, a North Smithfield Republican, and other Republicans proposed several amendments, including a proposal to delay implementation until July 1, 2027, rather than July 1, 2026.
De la Cruz said the banned weapons make up to 70 percent of the stock of some gun shops, and they need time to adjust. She noted the legislature had delayed implementation of new laws on casino smoking and payday loans, and she said those law don't involve the 'fundamental rights of the Second Amendment.'
Senator Andrew R. Dimitri, a Johnston Democrat, voted against the bill, saying, 'This bill still punishes good people, and does nothing to stop crime.'
But Senator Meghan E. Kallman, a Pawtucket Democrat, voted for the bill, citing mass shootings ranging from Columbine High School in 1999 to the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018.
'I am appealing to this chamber's sense of urgency. I do not want to have it happen here,' Kallman said. But she said she was voting for the bill 'over deep disappointment because we had the opportunity to do something better, stronger, and with much more moral clarity.'
Advertisement
In the leadup to Friday's vote,
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell stands behind doxing ICE agents even after officials said his actions put them in danger
The Democratic mayor of Tennessee's largest city, who has been accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts, defended his office's decision to publicly dox the names of immigration officers. Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's defense came even after the names of federal immigration officials were removed from a public immigration report detailing a month's worth of immigration-related interactions between local police and federal immigration authorities. Initially, the public report detailed immigration officers' names, but following backlash over the move the names were taken down. 'I wouldn't say it was an endangerment process, I would say they may have some concerns – I'm far more concerned about the overall dynamic we have about unmarked, unidentifiable masked people whisking people into vehicles – i think that's a bigger concern,' O'Connell, who is currently under investigation by GOP House lawmakers for potentially interfering with federal immigration efforts, said during a press conference with reporters. O'Connell did add the move was not 'intentional,' but then quickly followed up that he wouldn't have described what happened as 'doxing' in the first place. 'It's not a process that I would characterize as doxing. It was an unintentional release of names that were already part of a public record,' he told reporters. 'They were already part of a public record by being in Department of Emergency Communication's calls, so I don't think it puts them at additional risk. But it's also not an intention of the executive order under which those names are released.' Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell was accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts. WireImage Fox News Digital reached out to O'Connell's office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication. Larry Adams, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Field Office Director, told local Fox affiliate in Nashville WZTV that ICE agents disagree that making their names public is not a risk, noting their faces can easily be matched to photos on social media. 'It has gotten more and more difficult,' Adams said of his job under the new administration's aggressive deportation tactics, during a ride along with WZTV that occurred last week. 'What affects me the most, is we understand the job we are doing, we understand what we sign up for, it's mostly the attacks or threats against our families.' After Tennessee Republican Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles requested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate the Nashville mayor over allegedly obstructing federal officials, the agency followed through and opened an investigation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers gathered at the DHS field office in Nashville on May 4, 2025. REUTERS Meanwhile, two congressional committees are also investigating him, including requesting documents related to O'Connell's Executive Order 30, which has required city departments to report federal immigration communications to the city of Nashville's Office of New Americans. In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin remarked at the danger associated with doxing federal immigration officers, noting that the act effectively handed cartels intelligence 'on a silver platter.' 'These are the tip of the spear, these are the people on the front lines trying to make our communities safer,' McLaughlin said. 'So, when Democrats and the media show us who they are, we'll believe them, and it's the fact that they're fighting for people like MS-13 and child rapists to be on American streets.' According to local news outlet, the Tennessee Lookout, McLaughlin has also clapped back at O'Connell's claims that the release of immigration officials' names was a mistake. 'They claimed it was a mistake. There's zero chance it was a mistake, and there will be repercussions,' she said, according to the outlet.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history. A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible. Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians. Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025
