It only adds one word to state law, but it’s a big one, and Rhode Island lawmakers weren’t ready to approve it.
A bill heard in committee Wednesday afternoon adds “possess” to an assault weapons ban enacted last year that takes effect this summer. Doing so would give lawful owners of a broad swath of rifles and pistols one year to sell or surrender these guns or face up to 10 years in prison.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Democrats who supported last year’s bill were hesitant, with many saying they supported the idea, but that the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment would surely undo the law. The bill’s sponsor insisted that it would survive a court challenge.
“The bottom line is that police power and the Takings Clause occupy different constitutional lanes; one defines the limits of property rights, and the other protects them once defined,” Rep. Teresa Tanzi, D-Wakefield, said. “We have defined that which is dangerous, and now we have the right to regulate it into non-existence.”
Despite the arguments, lawmakers chose to table the bill. An identical Senate bill is scheduled for consideration.
‘Logical next step’
Supporters of the bill call it the “logical next step” in ensuring firearms that are too dangerous to sell cannot be possessed.
“(The bill) could save lives by eliminating the circulation in our communities of exceptionally deadly firearms that are most common in mass shootings,” said Ariana Wohl, board chair of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. “This bill is about taking initiative proactively before we could face another preventable tragedy, potentially involving weapons so dangerous that the sale and purchase of them soon shall no longer be permitted in Rhode Island.”
She stressed that the bill is constitutional because it’s simply a state exercising its police power, not taking private property for public use, because it requires gun owners to sell or transfer the firearms, not surrender them to police.
Constitutional questions abound
Opposition to the bill not only questioned whether it would run afoul of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but also the Fifth Amendment’s ban on government taking private property.
“I know of no laws that have ever required confiscation or surrender of legally obtained firearms, not in the United States,” said Robert Arabian, a Rhode Island attorney, in testimony about the legislation.
Democrats, including Rep. Jason Knight, D-Barrington, sponsored or voted for the soon-active assault weapons ban, and balked at the constitutionality of forcing gun owners to get rid of legally purchased firearms.
“Every other state that has an assault weapons ban in place prior to us putting our assault weapons ban in place has some sort of grandfather or legacy clause,” he said. “The government absolutely gets the right to restrict things, turn them into contraband … but, for things that are already in somebody’s hands, taking it away creates a problem.”
