Rhode Island Says There’s “No Need” for Semi-Autos …

… but given that I forgot it even exists until now, I say that there’s “no need” for Rhode Island.

It’s the same story that we’ve heard over and over again for the last several years: Another state is attempting to ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Once again, the state’s Democratic leadership has announced that they’re doing this because “nobody needs semi-automatics.” What’s different this time?

Well, once upon a time, my response would have been, “Well, nobody needs the Internet to exercise their freedom of speech. Just head down to City Hall and shout from a literal soapbox!” That was my “gotcha,” because I was comparing the violation of one Amendment to the Bill of Rights to another one. But the thing is that these days, the anti-gun Left has proven that it hates the First Amendment too.

I also used to bother pointing out that the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions specifically forbid this kind of legislation. But anti-gun Lefty states have been roundly ignoring those decisions for quite some time, so why should Rhode Island be different?

So, instead of trying to compare limiting the 2A to the 1A, or pointing to established Federal law, I’m simply going to point out that Rhode Island is a joke of a state. It shouldn’t exist. Why do we have a state that’s smaller than your average Texas cattle ranch? No wonder they’re trying to ban semi-autos, since a relatively skilled shooter could send a .308 from state line to state line with ease. Why don’t they just call themselves South Massachusetts and be done with it? Is it that Massachusetts won’t have them? Is the Rhode Island accent too doofy for Worcester? Are Rhode Island drivers too stupid for Boston?

Once again, this will either be defeated in the legislature now (unlikely), or in the courts much later (probable). But in the meantime, let’s join the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) in pointing and laughing at Rhode Island and its clown of a Governor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says legislation just introduced in the Rhode Island General Assembly to ban so-called “assault weapons” should be rejected, and is calling on its members in the state to demand as much from their elected representatives.

The bill, H-5436, targets virtually every self-loading rifle, regardless of caliber, capable of accepting detachable magazines. Only semi-automatic rifles of .22-caliber rimfire with tubular magazines would be exempt from the proposed ban.

“The authors of this legislation seem intent on banning every semiautomatic rifle possible, plus several models of semi-auto shotguns and various popular pistols,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’ve seen similar legislation in other states, all appearing to follow the same general formula, and they all amount to egregious efforts to erode the Second Amendment rights of law-abidiing citizens, without any reference to arresting and prosecuting armed criminals.

“It is distressing to hear state officials argue for bans on firearms based on their appearance, or their ability to accept certain accessories,” he continued. “Likewise, for the supporters of this bill to claim it somehow is aimed at gun safety is ludicrous. They seem to equate criminalizing firearms with gun safety, which strains common sense and will likely not prevent a single violent crime.

“When Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha declares in a prepared statement there is ‘no need’ for a private citizen to own a certain type of firearm,” Gottlieb commented, “one has to wonder who put him in charge of determining someone else’s ‘need.’ Besides, the Second Amendment is not about anyone’s ‘needs,’ it’s about rights. It is actually the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.

“We’re encouraging Rhode Island gun owners and grassroots activists to vigorously oppose H-5436,” he concluded. “They should immediately contact their local representatives and ask for a ‘No’ vote, and send a message to the General Assembly that banning whole classes of firearms is not the way to reduce violent crime or tragedy resulting from negligence.”