PROVIDENCE — Advocates and opponents of a proposed ban on assault-style weapons converged on the State House on Wednesday, as they do every year.
But this year the legislation stands a real chance of becoming law thanks in large part to former Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio, a longtime foe of such legislation, who said he was open to the idea before he died in April.
The Senate now has new leadership, and attention is riveted on whether the bill will emerge from the 10-member Senate Judiciary Committee, which is seen as being evenly split between supporters and opponents of the bill.
If the bill comes to vote in committee, attention will focus on whether Senate President Valarie J. Lawson’s leadership team will use its power to vote in the Judiciary Committee and propel the legislation to the Senate floor.
If it does make it to the Senate floor, Senator Louis P. DiPalma is confident that the legislation, which he introduced, will pass. DiPalma told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the bill has 24 co-sponsors in the Senate, which now has 37 members.
Advertisement
“In the spirit of our previous Senate president, who was open to making this happen this year, I’d like to think we could get it over the goal line in his memory,” DiPalma told the Globe.
Ruggerio, a North Providence Democrat who once had an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, had long maintained that any ban on assault-style weapons should be enacted on the federal level rather than by the state Legislature. But during an interview with Globe reporters in December, Ruggerio said, “That is my former position.” He didn’t say he would back the bill, but he said he’d consider the legislation.
Advertisement
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held DiPalma’s bill and more than a dozen other gun bills for further study as they heard testimony on those proposals.
DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, urged the panel to bring his bill the floor for a vote, and he attempted to head off claims that the legislation is unconstitutional. He cited recent federal court cases and said experts would talk to the committee about the constitutional issues.
“Banning assault-style weapons is categorically constitutional,” he said. “Some may not want to believe that, but at the end of the day, as an engineer, the facts, data, and context are clear.”
DiPalma said opponents might say that a mass shooting involving assault-style weapons has not happened in Rhode Island. “Thank God it hasn’t,” he said.
But, he said, “I’m originally from Connecticut. This happened in Sandy Hook. And I’ve sat across the table from a grandfather who lost a 6-year-old grandson at Sandy Hook.”
DiPalma said most people in Rhode Island support his legislation. He cited a February 2025 poll, commissioned by the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, that found 64 percent of Rhode Island voters support a ban on the sale and manufacture of “military assault style weapons.”
Senate Minority Whip Gordon E. Rogers, a Foster Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, questioned DiPalma about the bill, and said, “As everyone knows, this is the 800-pound gorilla in the room.”
Advertisement
Rogers said any experts weighing in on the constitutionality of the bill would be expressing their own opinions because the matter will ultimately be up to the US Supreme Court.
Rogers said he considered the AFL-CIO survey a “push poll,” meaning it contained loaded questions. He accused Rhode Island AFL-CIO President Patrick Crowley of “using union funds to go against many of the union membership in the AFL-CIO” and using the poll results against them “on something that they hold dear and that is their Second Amendment.”
Crowley later testified, citing the poll results and said, “This is a workplace issue, and this problem needs to be addressed.”
Tim Lachance, the assistant general counsel for the National Sports Shooting Association, told the committee that the weapons, which he called “modern sporting rifles,” are among the most popular firearms on the market.
He argued that banning the entire category would not hold up to legal scrutiny, and argued Rhode Island should wait until the US Supreme Court weighs in on similar bans in other states.
“We are simply in a position of urging you to wait,” Lachance said. “It will only serve to unfairly and unlawfully restrict the constitutional rights of Rhode Islanders, and will likely just result in costly litigation for the state, because these laws will be challenged.”
Greg Lickenbrock, the senior firearms analyst for Everytown for Gun Safety, argued Rhode Islanders will still have access to a wide range of popular guns including revolvers, most semi-automatic pistols, manual rifles popular with hunters, and semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines.
“You have a chance to save lives and prevent unnecessary bloodshed in Rhode Island,” he told the senators.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, the House is considering a companion bill introduced by Representative Jason Knight, a Barrington Democrat.
House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat who supports an assault weapons ban, said at a Rhode Map Live event in March that he thinks a requirement in the bill for owners to register their firearms would be unconstitutional. He said he is working with Knight on “addressing concerns that emerged in the Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this session. The bill is a work in progress.”
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him @FitzProv. Steph Machado can be reached at steph.machado@globe.com. Follow her @StephMachado.