On January 15th, 2016 RI State Representatives Regunberg, Carson, Ajello, Handy, and Almeida introduced H7199 “AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES — WEAPONS” which would amend RI General Laws Section 11-47-2 adding several new definitions as well as adding Section 11-47-64 “High Capacity Magazines”
In 11-47-2 (12) they have defined “High capacity magazine” and “large capacity ammunition magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds, or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person…
11-47-64 High capacity magazines goes on to stipulate:
(a) No person, corporation, or other entity in the 12 state may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell or transfer any high capacity magazine. Every person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be subject to imprisonment for no more than ten (10) years.
and
(c) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this section, was legally in possession 28 of a high capacity magazine, shall have one hundred twenty (120) days from such effective date 29 to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the high capacity magazine from the state;
(2) Sell the high capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
(3) Surrender the high capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for 33 destruction subject to specific agency regulations.
This not only bans these magazines but also provides for the de facto confiscation of private property.
We urge you to contact the Bill’s Sponsors:
- J. Aaron Regunberg – Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-222-2466
- Lauren H. Carson – Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-222-2466
- Edith H. Ajello – Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-274-7078
- Arthur Handy – Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-785-8996
- Joseph S. Almeida – Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-467-7033
As well as your own Representatives:
And express your disapproval with this overreaching legislation.
Please share and comment here and let us know you’ve taken action to secure your rights.
That bill is old, we shot that down already.
Ajello isn’t there anymore either.
– Dan Bidondi
Apparently it’s been reintroduced.
And who is going to reimburse all those owners of large capacity magazines? This is not only confiscation its outright theft! And where in the Constitution concerning the Second Amendment concerning “shall not be infringed”.
At least Maryland when they passed a similar law, the least grandfathered in existing product. And how are you going to go about searching in seizing these materials without violating the fourth and fifth amendment?
This is typical of knee-jerk liberals not thinking through the problems. I would invite them to look at the FBI statistics, long rifles and shotguns represent less than 1000 deaths annually many of which are suicides, where cars kill 30,000+ a year, hammers bats and other implements kill as many as long guns, and nice kill substantially more people than long guns or shotguns.
If you really want to make a difference start enforcing the laws are already on the books when concerned with criminals using firearms and you will get much more bang for your buck so to speak than trying to do this which is patently against the second fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution.
You do realize that the Constitution is almost 225 years old and the “arms” they referred to them were single shot, muzzle loaded muskets. What possible reason would you need a high capacity mag for any type of gun in RI. Is 10 shots per mag not enough? Is your aim that terrible? Too lazy or slow to change mags? Oh, but wait, it’s about freedom, my bad.
As a firearms instructor, I feel the need to inform you that 10 rds may not be enough. Consider engaging multiple assailants. Your adrenaline is surging, you lose fine muscle control, you develop tunnel vision, then proceed to miss 70-80% of your shots. Oh, these are stats from the FBI regarding law enforcement (LE) shootings. Most LE don’t practice frequently, nor do they practice shooting under stress.
There’s also a Hollywood fallacy that one shot equals one kill. NOT!!! People have been hit by pistol rds 10-12 times & still represent a threat. Add to that a perp on PCP & you are facing someone who doesn’t know they’ve been shot.
Accuracy has as much to do with practice as it does with human physiology. Several women I have trained have had to dump mags & reload when engaging multiple perps. Fortunately, the women survived. Don’t let tv cloud your vision of what accurately firing a gun actually entails. It sets a very bad & inaccurate example. I tell my students that in a life & death situation you can never have too many bullets.
You do realize that at the time the first amendment was written there was no internet and so your freedom of speech provided by the 1st does not cover making idiotic posts on the net.
What are you scared of dude?
The 2nd Amendment is written to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. Check out Russia, China, France, Canada, Cambodia, Bosnia and more for examples of what happens when a populace is disarmed.
Additionally, single shot muzzle loaders were
1 – military grade weapons at the time which would imply that we have the right to military grade weapons throughout all of history.
2 – multi shot weapons had existed for decades at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and the framers were aware of them. Which means multi shot, cutting edge weapons technology was good to go.
So what is your well reasoned and factually based response?
Who is talking about disarming the populace, or taking away cutting edge weaponry? I’m not for that. That would be dumb! I’m just talking about EXTENDED MAGAZINES…isn’t that an “old” thing? Doesn’t sound too cutting edge to me..more bullets in same magazine. If no one had them, then everyone would be on an even playing field, criminals included, right?
Yea, I guess if the police tried to take over the country, we might be screwed, but I really don’t foresee that ever happening. I’ll cite simple math for that. Even if the police were the only ones with high capacity mags, and everyone else still had regular mags, normal gun wielding citizens would still win out. In a town of 40k, how many police are there? MAYBE 80, but most likely less. I wouldn’t put my money on the cops with extended mags. We pay their salaries anyways, how would they get paid if they started killing everyone?
I guess the main point we disagree on though, is how a 225 year old document should be interpreted. I think the Constitution is a great set of guidelines/laws to follow, but I also believe it needs to be updated with the times. There is no possible way you can KNOW what the framers meant by anything in there, unless you were there. (are you that old?) What we can do is update a piece of paper to adapt to modern times. If you go by that logic, you would take everything in the Bible verbatim as well…things like…someone walked on water, a giant flood came and two animals of every species got onto a boat with a guy named Noah, someone rose from the dead….Gun violence in this country is ridiculously high, compared to say Germany (or anywhere besides Africa). Don’t you think at least PART of the problem is the easy access of military weapons to our citizens? What about standard background checks? That seems reasonable, but some people are against it. Shit, I’d even be cool with people passing extensive background checks to have extended mags. So they can blow off steam in their backyard without reloading as much, or do well in an apocalypse situation.
It says no person, corporation or entity may be in possession of a “high capacity magazine”. I bet that doesn’t apply to police though with all there glocks definitely holding more than ten rounds and I bet any armed security protecting any of RI political figures this will also not apply to even though the bill clearly says “ANY” person, corporation, or entity ( ie police and security) I do not support any part of this bill. This is unconstitutional and only hurts law abiding men and women in our awesome little state. This is just a lets play nice nice politics so ri seems relevant in the national firearms “debate” that will disappear after we get a new president dem or rep. Why doesn’t the state take care or the country’s worst roads not via some tax raping of the average person and tolls which is actually a concern of Rhode Islanders.
You are correct, Section 11-47-64 (b) lists all those that are exempt including: “Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess a high capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of their duties;”
Called all on the list. I spoke with Ajello… I asked her how many crimes that have been committed in the last five years in RI or even the whole USA if this bill would have been already in our laws? She was SPEECHLESS! Call these people up… I left messages for all the rest including my rep!
I meant how many of these crimes would this bill have prevented…
It sounds like there are a few a-holes, I mean people, in your state house that don’t have enough to do. Sure makes me glad that I live in Wyoming! We have constitutional carry open or concealed without need for a license. What gets me about Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, among others, is that they were among the signers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and they’re among the worst of the anti-gunners!
When you consider the laws in our neighboring states, RI isn’t that bad off. Currently, we have no restrictions except for NFA items (SBR’s, Suppressors, Full Auto, etc.) So no restriction on the type of firearm or magazine capacity and no restrictions on ammo either. There is a 7 day waiting period for purchases unless you have a chief issued CCW and then it is cash and carry.
In RI technically you can open carry a rifle without a permit. It’s just never done. Concealed carry is an ongoing issue. If the local police chiefs would follow the law we’d have a pretty straight forward, shall issue process. There is active and ongoing litigation in this area. Granted not constitutional carry but not nearly as bad as some of our neighbors.
This legislation has not passed and it was previously defeated. However it is important we keep our eyes on this issue; otherwise, they try to sneak these things past us.
High capacity mags weren’t around when the Constitution was signed 2 1/4 centuries ago. No one is going to take away guns, just HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES. Please tell me why you need them? You can still bear all the arms you want, just have to reload more.
Dan your computer wasn’t here 225 years ago and I don’t see you commenting with a quill pen. Take away the magazine when there is no substitution and you took away the firearm. Who decides what is hi capacity. Today it is ten, next year it could be 6. Slippery slope when you try to regulate a right. Perhaps next the First Amendment is next and the legislature bans all news except “happy” news so people can walk around humming “zippity do da” without a care.
I have to reload more because Dan on the internet says so. How about no?
Is this for handguns too? If so, do you know how many guns have more than 10 round magazines. Lots of them. I have a few and they don’t make smaller magazines for them. Weapon will be useless.
Yeah handguns too.
Isn’t Joseph S. Almeida a convicted felon? Now he wants to make felons out of the rest of us?
To Dan and other 2nd Amendment-means-muskets folks, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights have regularly been interpreted in the present, while based on the principles laid down by the Founders. That is the distinction. The Fourth Amendment has often dealt with cell phones, motor vehicles, and computers, etc. Our First Amendment protects the iPhone and the Surface tablets. But you know that. The Second Amendment (after Heller) protects common weapons for self defense by lawful users in their homes. Who knows how many shots it might take to fight off an attacker or three. But WHO decides how best to protect themselves and they families, the individual or the government? Ah, back to those principles. It is the individual and not the government that has been given, no, not given, the right. The right is ours and the Founders and Constitution acknowledged that squarely over 200 years ago. The Second Amendment acknowledges that right; it doesn’t bestow it.