As Cam noted on Wednesday, the Rhode Island House held a hearing on a gun ban bill. They say it’s an assault weapon ban, but it’s really more than that. It’s more evidence of just how little anti-gunners in legislatures understand the devices they’re trying to regulate.
But gun rights advocates in the state didn’t just sit at home and seethe.
No, they stepped up and turned out in force to make sure lawmakers know where they stand on the issue.
The yellow shirts of Second Amendment advocates far outnumbered orange and red shirts donned by gun control supporters at the State House for a committee hearing Wednesday on the latest proposal to ban assault-style weapons in Rhode Island.
Nearly 2,000 people filled the halls and State House rotunda to oppose the proposed ban backed by Gov. Dan McKee and the rest of the state’s general office holders.
“It’s not common sense,” Brenda Jacob, a lobbyist and secretary for the Rhode Island Revolver & Rifle Association, told the House Committee on Judiciary. “This is an all weapons ban — let’s call this what it is.”
The bill sponsored by Jason Knight, a Barrington Democrat, would prohibit the sale and manufacturing of assault-style shotguns, handguns, and rifles beginning Jan. 1, 2026. Violators would face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 and forfeiture of the weapon.
Knight’s bill defines assault-style weapons based on their function and features, such as ability to accept detachable magazines and stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mount, and barrel shrouds.
“We as a General Assembly have an obligation to think about and do things to ensure the public trust, given the increase and uptick in mass murder in the United States,” Knight told the committee.
Knight’s bill was held for further study by the committee, as is standard procedure when legislation is first considered.
…
But Knight said such arguments by gun right advocates are hyperbolic.
“All these weapons enable a fast and powerful bullet that makes much bigger holes than a handgun,” he said in an interview before Wednesday’s hearing.
Knight has never compared the size of a 9mm to a 5.56mm rifle round, such as the one fired by the much-maligned AR-15.
For the record, 9 > 5.56.
The only reason that isn’t kindergarten math is because of the decimal.
But hey, why not just be an idiot in the news media? Sure, the rounds are fast, but the damage is vastly overstated all the time, and let’s also be real here, if it’s about public safety, handguns kill more people than so-called assault weapons do each and every year.
Unsurprisingly, Knight claims that the bill won’t impact many handguns and many hunting rifles and shotguns, even some semi-automatic ones.
What he’s missing, though I’m sure he’s been told, is that the Second Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with hunting. The fact that hunting rifles will be untouched is irrelevant. At no point in any Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment has the term “hunting weapons” been suggested as the litmus test for what had to be left alone.
And after the Bruen decision, I fail to see just how a law like this can remotely pass constitutional muster.
Then again, after the Vanderstok ruling, I’m not sure I trust the Supreme Court to make a peanut butter sandwich, so…
Still, there was a lot of pro-gun turnout, and it sounds like they were in greater numbers than the anti-gunners. Will that make a difference?
Editor’s Note: Day in and day out, we bring you daily Second Amendment news you can trust. Help us continue to defend our sacred right to keep and bear arms and bring you the truth.
Join Bearing Arms VIP today and use promo FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
