Opponent of Rhode Island Gun Ban Bill May Not Be Allowed to Vote Against It

The fate of a Rhode Island bill that would make every semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine off-limits to residents may hinge on a Democratic state senator who also happens to be a federally licensed firearms dealer.

State Senator Majority Leader Frank A. Ciccone III doesn’t sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where SB 359 is awaiting a vote. But as part of Senate leadership Ciccone is allowed to sit with any committee and vote on any bill he likes. Whether or not he’ll vote to keep the bill from reaching the Senate floor, however, is very much an open question.

On Tuesday morning, the state Ethics Commission is set to issue an advisory opinion on whether, as a licensed gun dealer, Ciccone is prohibited from taking part in discussions and votes on a proposed ban on assault-style weapons.

In a recent interview for the Rhode Island Report podcast, Ciccone, a Providence Democrat, acknowledged he has voted against gun bills in the past, including proposed bans on assault-style weapons. But, he said, “In the past, I was just the chairman of the Labor Committee, so I wasn’t really involved in a lot of the Judiciary Committee hearings.” 

As Democratic majority leader, Ciccone can now sit in and vote on any Senate committee. So, he said, “I thought it was time to officially ask for an opinion from them.”

It was Ciccone himself who asked for the opinion from the Ethics Commission, not anti-gun advocates of the “assault weapon” bill, which is bizarre to me. In fact, it’s the first time he’s ever done so, even though he’s served in the legislature for a couple of decades. 

I don’t understand why the senator didn’t just assume he had the authority to vote on the legislation and let the gun control lobby howl in protest afterwards… unless, perhaps, he’s looking for a way to get the gun ban bill to the Senate floor, where it’s almost guaranteed to be adopted. 

While Ciccone says he believes the bill, as written, is a violation of the Second Amendment, it sounds like he’s on board with a gun ban bill in theory.  

But Ciccone said he considers the bill to be unconstitutional. “It had some language in it that I don’t think would’ve passed muster,” he said, citing a provision for a gun registry.

Also, he said DiPalma’s bill proposed banning “a list of probably every single type weapon you could think of. He said he told DiPalma, “This looks like an old bill rehashed, so I’m gonna pass on it.” 

… Ciccone did not commit to voting the bill out of committee. He said the House might be making changes to the legislation, and he wants to see what the amended bill looks like.

Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz, a North Smithfield Republican, and “bipartisan Second Amendment supporters” held a press conference last week to oppose the assault-style weapons ban. And Ciccone said he and Tikoian “stepped into the room for a while” during that press conference.

Also last week, Ciccone withdrew a bill that he had sponsored to ban a much narrower range of “assault weapons,” not including the AR-15.

“I decided to pull the bill since there were several bills that were going to be heard that night,” he said. “Let’s find out what takes place. And my feeling would be that if nothing passes, then I would be looking to form some type of a committee or commission to study it.”

So Ciccone may very well be looking to give himself an out by asking the Ethics Commission to decide whether or not he’s allowed to cast a vote or if it would be a conflict of interest. And if the Ethics Commission says it’s kosher for Ciccone to cast a vote in committee (as it should), the Democrat may use that decision as leverage to make some changes to the bill, though I don’t think it’s possible to amend the legislation enough to earn the support or neutrality from Second Amendment advocates. 

SB 359 would prohibit the sale of all gas-operated semi-automatic long guns (rimfire excluded) that can accept a detachable magazine. Existing owners could keep their rifles and shotguns, but they’d have to register their firearm with local law enforcement or the state police. Ciccone may want to modify SB 359 to look more like Colorado’s SB 3, which was amended to allow new purchases so long as buyers undergo additional training and obtain a permission slip from their local sheriff, but that won’t satisfy Rhode Island’s Second Amendment community. 

As wishy-washy as Ciccone’s comments on SB 359 have been to date, at the moment he’s still the lawmaker who has the best chance of keeping the bill bottled up in committee. Gun owners should be in constant contact with his office and urging him to reject SB 359 outright instead of trying to water it down. We’ll find out tomorrow whether or not he’ll be in a position to block SB 359, or if anti-gun Democrats will be able to ram it through committee and push it out to the Senate floor, where a majority of senators have signed on as co-sponsors.