close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Rhode Island: Providence Passes Resolution Banning Semi-Automatic Guns

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Fox, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. Fox

    Fox Varmit Control

    6,710
    266
    Nov 7, 2001
    USA
    On Thursday night, the Providence City Council passed a resolution banning all semi-automatic firearms in the city. This resolution passed with 8 votes, 6 opposed and 1 abstention. This sweeping gun ban proclamation is an all-out assault on the Second Amendment rights of Rhode Islanders.

    Last session at the Statehouse, the NRA-ILA worked to defeat legislation that attacked the state firearms preemption statute. Rhode Island has a firearms preemption law that prohibits local governments from adopting gun control laws which are more restrictive than state law. Firearms preemption statutes are designed to prevent a patchwork of confusing, and sometimes conflicting, laws as residents travel from city to city.

    In 2012, Senate Bill 2573 by Senator Harold Metts (D-6), now-former Senator Rhoda Perry (D-3), Senator Juan Pichardo (D-2), Senator Paul Jabour (D-5) and Senator Elizabeth Crowley (D-16) would have given control to regulate firearms and ammunition to local jurisdictions, and it would have included ownership, possession, transportation, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase delay, licensing, registration and taxation. That dangerous legislation was defeated in a Senate committee, but it will be re-introduced again THIS SESSION.

    The Rhode Island General Assembly convened for its 2013 session this week. The NRA-ILA is working to defeat any attacks on firearms preemption prohibiting anti-gun municipalities from enacting gun bans like the one Providence has just adopted. Anti-gun forces are moving quickly and your immediate action on this matter is urgently needed. Gun owners should contact their state Senator and Representative IMMEDIATELY and respectfully urge lawmakers to oppose these harmful bans which target law-abiding citizens and do nothing to improve public safety or target criminals.

    MORE
     
  2. elsolo

    elsolo

    6,190
    1,339
    Aug 4, 2003
    socal
    Sounds like the city passed a law that the courts will toss out.
     

  3. Add it to the list of places I will NEVER visit or spend my money again.
     
  4. frank4570

    frank4570

    15,508
    8
    Jun 25, 2004
    It's hard to believe they can get away with this.
     
  5. tarpleyg

    tarpleyg

    3,153
    1
    Aug 7, 2002
    North Carolina
    So now, not only have they broken state law, they have also snubbed their noses at the US constitution. What a bunch of idiots.
     
  6. G36's Rule

    G36's Rule Senior Member

    9,373
    85
    Dec 1, 2001
    Spring, TX.
    Article was pretty clear, they can't get away with this. Preemption will not allow it.
     
  7. Fox

    Fox Varmit Control

    6,710
    266
    Nov 7, 2001
    USA
    They break the laws that they expect others to obey. The question is why do they get away with it?
     
  8. Little Joe

    Little Joe

    7,746
    1,607
    Dec 28, 2007
    At The Ready
    Would it be wrong to say I hope they all get mugged and their homes invaded before the month is out, for those who voted for it?
     
  9. scrider

    scrider

    57
    0
    Dec 25, 2012
    So this new law suggests that anybody that legally possessed a semi-automatic firearm in Providence is now breaking the law?
     
  10. frank4570

    frank4570

    15,508
    8
    Jun 25, 2004
    Yes, it would be wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't say it.

    After all, they've already shown it is ok to do things that are clearly wrong.
     
  11. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    28,685
    11
    Mar 26, 2003
    No, you would not be wrong. People who swear to support and uphold the constitution, but diametrically oppose significant components of it deserve to be tarred, feathered, shot, decapitated and burnt.

    And then severely punished.

    If you don't plan on supporting the constitution don't run for office - it should be that simple.
     
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT NRA Benefactor

    5,438
    214
    Feb 24, 2000
    Richmond, Virginia
    They didn't pass a law, they passed a resolution. Big difference.
     
  13. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    28,685
    11
    Mar 26, 2003

    Ok, I will take the feathering off the table, that was a bit harsh. :embarassed: :rofl:
     
  14. GAFinch

    GAFinch

    5,932
    33
    Feb 23, 2009
    Georgia
    I've seen a couple Democrat strategists on Fox News suggest banning all semi-automatic firearms as well. Despite any assurances otherwise, this is what they all really want.
     
  15. Michael Rye

    Michael Rye

    1,730
    142
    Oct 8, 2012
    SC
    Yes, they are all going to be so much safer now:rollingeyes:

    Total friggin' idiots deserve whatever happens to them.
     
  16. RGbiker

    RGbiker

    1,513
    6
    Oct 12, 2009
    Arizona
    Ooooooh, the local Gangbangers are gonna' be pissed...:supergrin:
     
  17. VA27

    VA27

    1,212
    83
    Mar 23, 2002
    usa
    There, fixed it for you.:D If all the gun owners in R.I. left the state there wouldn't be enough people left have a football game.
     
  18. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964

    20,923
    2,815
    Sep 4, 2009
    U.S.A.
    There is also a bill to eliminate preemption and give local jurisdictions the ability to regulate firearms and ammo.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  19. jame

    jame I don't even know....what I'm doing here....

    5,913
    1,854
    Apr 6, 2002
    Central Iowa
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  20. .45Super-Man

    .45Super-Man

    4,609
    0
    May 4, 2007
    Smallville
    Our founders would have fixed this with a simple platform and about 6 ft of rope. "Shall not infringe" doesn't have a 'grey area'. You either uphold the constitution or you're an enemy of it and a traitor.