logo
R.I. Senate votes to ban sale, purchase of assault-style weapons

R.I. Senate votes to ban sale, purchase of assault-style weapons

Boston Globe4 hours ago

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

User's manual to the Big, Beautiful Bill this weekend and early next week
User's manual to the Big, Beautiful Bill this weekend and early next week

Fox News

time23 minutes ago

  • Fox News

User's manual to the Big, Beautiful Bill this weekend and early next week

Next week is crucial to passage of the Big, Beautiful Bill in the Senate. If things go well, the bill could be done by the end of next week. If things go poorly, the Senate may be crashing to finish the bill before July 4. That could involve weekend sessions and the cancellation of the July 4 recess. On Sunday, Senate Republicans huddle with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to whittle away provisions which don't comport with Senate budgetary rules. The Senate is using a special process known as "budget reconciliation" to avoid a filibuster. As a result, the bill must be fiscal in nature and not add to the deficit. It cannot include "policy." This is known as the "Byrd Rule." It's named after late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.V.). The process of meeting with the Parliamentarian is the "Byrd Bath." MacDonough serves as a referee to decide what fits with Senate budget rules. The various provisions which MacDonough fillets from the bill are called "Byrd droppings." Anyway, despite the cornpone Senate humor, the process offstage on Sunday is crucial to the process. What's ruled in or out could bolster chances of passing the bill – or kill it. We will start to get information about what is ruled in or out over the weekend and stretching into Monday. Those policy details will be critical. So watch for leaks and other information to dribble out beginning on Sunday. This process will roll into early next week with an initial vote to begin the process mid-week. It will culminate with a round-the-clock voting session (known as a "vote-a-rama") late next week. Then the measure must go back to the House. That's because the Senate will inevitably change the bill. The House and Senate must be aligned before the bill can go to the president's desk. And this is why the deadline to finish the bill by July 4 may slip.

Gavin Newsom sipped wine at Napa fundraiser while anti-ICE protesters plunged L.A. into chaos
Gavin Newsom sipped wine at Napa fundraiser while anti-ICE protesters plunged L.A. into chaos

New York Post

time28 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Gavin Newsom sipped wine at Napa fundraiser while anti-ICE protesters plunged L.A. into chaos

California Gov. Gavin Newsom threw on a pair of sunglasses and sipped wine at a ritzy party at his sun-drenched vineyard earlier this month – just as chaotic, anti-ICE protests kicked off in Los Angeles. The luxe event dubbed 'Vineyard Vibes' was held at the Odette Estate Winery in Napa Valley to raise money for the PlumpJack Foundation, founded by Newsom's sister, on the afternoon of June 7. One witness was appalled that the Democrat was casually enjoying a glass of vino in a V-neck T-shirt and baseball cap the day after his City of Angels started spiraling into violence, with rioters throwing concrete rocks at cops and vandalizing federal buildings. 4 California Gov. Gavin Newsom was spotted at the Odette Estate Winery in Napa Valley as anti-ICE protests kicked off in Los Angeles earlier this month. Obtained by NYPost 4 The governor was dressed casually at the fundraiser, just a day after LA started spiraling into violence. Obtained by NYPost 'I couldn't believe it,' said the source, who photographed Newsom at the wine-tasting event. 'He was just walking around like this was an everyday occurrence.' But more than 400 miles away, downtown Los Angeles was plunging into chaos – rioters were busted for tossing Molotov cocktails at law enforcement while vehicles were set on fire and scrawled with graffiti reading 'KILL ICE' and 'F–K ICE.' The violence, spurred by raids on illegal immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reached a point that President Trump called in the National Guard over objections from Newsom, who ripped into the Republican for inflaming the situation. Newsom attended the wine fundraiser for at least 90 minutes, the source said — with Trump sending in the troops later that evening. 4 The 'Vineyard Vibes' event happened on June 7, as one witness there was shocked to see Newsom in a V-neck T-shirt enjoying a glass of wine on the same day protests were breaking out across the City of Angels. AFP via Getty Images The event featured 'contemporary yet sophisticated' wines, live jazz music and local sources pizza and smash burgers. 'It's the perfect kick-off to summer fun,' promotional language stated. 'The fete will take place on the Winery Crushpad, where we'll gather for music, food, conversation, a delicious wine!' A spokesperson for the governor's office made clear Newsom 'proudly attended' the annual fundraiser for the UCSF Cancer 'in honor of his mother who died of breast cancer' at age 55. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! PlumpJack Foundation is focused on cancer prevention and education and combating the cycle of poverty, according to its website. Newsom co-founded Odette Estate Winery with two other business partners more than a decade ago. Newsom, a possible contender to run for president in 2028, has faced past criticism for being out of touch, including in November 2020 when he was caught attending a swanky dinner party for 12 even as he encouraged California residents not to socialize because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A photo snapped at the time showed him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, unmasked around the same time he pushed for state guidelines meant to suppress the spread of the disease. 4 A source indicated that Newsom was at the fundraiser for around 90 minutes before troops were later sent by President Trump across the city. REUTERS Newsom apologized for the shocking display of hypocrisy as he faced a firestorm. 'While the First Partner and I followed the restaurant's health protocols and took safety precautions, I should have modeled better behavior and not joined the dinner,' he said in a statement. Newsom and Trump have been battling in court over the commander in chief's authority to control National Guard troops he sent to the liberal West Coast city. Newsom claimed the deployment wasted resources and raised the temperature while Trump insisted he had to take the action to restore order.

Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act

Chicago Tribune

time43 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act

SAN FRANCISCO — California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. The hearing happened the day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles on Friday and met with troops, including U.S. Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings. According to Vance, the court determined Trump's determination to send in federal troops 'was legitimate' and he will do it again if necessary. 'The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard because it's unnecessary,' Vance told journalists after touring a federal complex in Los Angeles. Vance's tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations have calmed after sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and break-ins that followed immigration raids across Southern California earlier this month. Tens of thousands have also marched peacefully in Los Angeles since June 8. National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building. The marked the first time federal troops detained a civilian since deploying to the nation's second-largest city. Breyer found Trump acted illegally when, over opposition from California's governor, the president activated the soldiers. However, the appellate decision halted the judge's temporary restraining order. Breyer asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction giving Newsom back control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations appear to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents gathered at a parking lot with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,' ' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but the panel said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It is the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store