We tend to think of states as somewhat monolithic, mostly because that’s how the electoral college works. Blue states always vote Democrat, red states vote Republican, and purple states are swing states that can go either way in any given election.
But that’s an oversimplification. Any political grouping is, of course, but the smaller the geographical region you look at, the more accurate your view is likely to be.
Take Rhode Island, as an example. It’s a very anti-gun state and likely seems poised to pass an assault weapon ban.
Meanwhile, a town just outside of the largest city in the state clearly wants nothing to do with such a law.
In a similar vote to others in more suburban area communities, the Town Council last week approved a resolution banning the state’s proposed assault weapons ban.
The resolution, as proposed by Councilor Stefano Famiglietti “concerning opposition to Rhode Island 2025 gun control legislation,” responds to the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025, proposed by Gov. Dan McKee.
…
Famiglietti, at the April 1 council meeting, said the mass of people who descended on the Statehouse to protect their Second Amendment rights reminded him of officials’ oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution and Rhode Island Constitution. Such legislation, he said, is incompatible with the Second Amendment.
It would be easy for local officials to ignore the issue, said Famiglietti, but he believes it’s incumbent on them to protect the rights of individuals when challenged, and that’s especially true when a codified right is set to be significantly restricted by a proposed bill. This act impacts the rights of safe and lawful gun owners, he said, and the “hastily proposed law” presents numerous issues as it infringes on the rights of their constituents, and will also lead to lawsuits.
Now, the first sentence says the town council in North Providence’s resolution was about “banning” the state’s proposed assault weapon ban, which doesn’t seem to be the case. That’s probably an error as nothing else in the piece suggests that they’re becoming a sanctuary community for such weapons or anything of the sort.
That said, this is one of the suburbs of Providence, and if they’re passing resolutions opposing the measure, one has to wonder just how popular an assault weapon ban really is.
While suburbs can be more conservative or libertarian than the city they surround, they’re usually not off by all that much. If suburban communities are resistant to an assault weapon ban, McKee would do well to open his ears and listen.
I get that he won’t agree with the constitutional arguments against such a measure, but he should be able to recognize the political reality of what can happen if you pass unpopular legislation. I assume he’s wanting a second term, seeing as how he’s running for it. Doing stuff like this when a lot of people dislike it isn’t a great way to win votes.
And it would be kind of hilarious if an anti-gun Democrat lost the election in Rhode Island because of his gun control stances, especially considering what all is already on the books there.
Read the full article here
