Editor’s note: Several of the claims in this article have been refuted by those familiar with the bill. A follow-up to this article can be found here.
GLOCESTER – The Glocester Town Council passed a resolution opposing recently proposed legislation that would make it illegal to own certain firearms at their recent meeting.
The bill – 2025-H 5436, 2025-S 0359 – was introduced by Rep. Jason Knight, a Democrat from District 67 in Barrington and Warren, and Sen. Louis DiPalma, also a Democrat representing District 12 in Middletown, Little Compton, Newport and Tiverton, as a ban on assault weapons, but Town Council President William Worthy said it goes much, much further than that.
“They are calling it an assault weapons ban, but it includes everything you can possibly imagine,” said Worthy at a meeting. “Everything from an 1850 Remington side block with a bayonet attached …any kind of shotgun that has a threaded barrel on it, any firearm that has a magazine that can be altered, any revolver that weighs over 50 ounces. They are going for everything.”
He said that although the bill was originally part of the state budget, it has since been separated from that. Most of the leaders, he said, agree it is unconstitutional and illegal, but that it is being considered anyway. Worthy pointed out that there are many gun owners in small outlying towns like Glocester who would be affected by it.
“You could have grandpa’s rifle hanging over your fireplace. Next thing you know, you could be a felon,” warned Worthy.
Additionally, Worthy, who owns Big Bear Hunting and Fishing, which sells firearms, said if the legislation were passed, it would basically shut down all similar shops in the state, resulting in a loss of revenue of more than $360 million toward the state budget. The state also receives more than $117 million from manufacturers of rifles, guns and ammunitions as a result of the Pitman Act. That money goes toward helping to fund the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and the upkeep and preservation of boat ramps, beaches and walkways.
At the recent meeting, Council Vice President Walter Steere pointed out that decisions at the state level are being made without input or consideration for all towns and municipalities, especially outlying rural communities like Glocester.
“I think this is an incredible overreach of government, and we’ve seen this in other areas,” said Steere. “Look at what they have done to us with local zoning, not just in this town, but the whole state. People are starting to wake up. This incredible overreach is happening in the State House on so many different levels.”
Steere said he fears that people in the State House will be looking at towns such as Lincoln, which also recently passed a resolution against the bill, and other communities that have voiced opposition to what they are trying to do. As a result, he said, those towns could be deprioritized when it comes to grants and funding.
“Oh, they need money for their schools or they need money for their roads,” Steere said. “Maybe they find themselves at the bottom of the list. We all understand that’s how it works.”
Resident Cassidy Greathouse said that the law would not only be an unfunded mandate on firearms storage, forcing the town to pay for it, but it would also force local police to break a current law on the books regarding registering firearms.
“It’s putting our police department in a sticky situation by creating a gun registry,” said Greathouse.
R.I. Gen. Laws 11-47-41 states that “No government agency of this state or its political subdivisions shall keep or cause to be kept any list or register of privately owned firearms or any list or register of the owners of those firearms,” except for those which have been used illegally in committing crimes.
The bill would further burden local law enforcement by requiring police to personally register guns and gun owners on site, fingerprinting them and doing all the other extra paperwork and processing involved, added Greathouse.
“They’re already dealing with enough, so to even complicate their day in and day out work – it’s not right,” he said.
“It’s in here that we took our oath to support this Constitution,” said Councilor Stephanie Calise. “It’s up to us to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for our constituents.”
Councilor Cheryl Greathouse and Councilor Jonathan Burlingame agreed, adding that the state shouldn’t be trying to use funding as leverage to force agreement with bills.
“We all know in politics, you do something somebody doesn’t like, somewhere it’s going to bite you,” said Worthy. “I see it at the State House all the time. Us putting our necks out there, I think, is driving that home. That’s grassroots telling the state. And again, this could be the 1st Amendment. It could be any of them. This isn’t an assault weapons ban. It’s an all weapons ban. When I go to the State House, and I talk to them about this, they have no idea about firearms.”
Adding to the problem, he said, are social media comments, most of which are misleading or simply incorrect. Taking a stand, he said, does come with its risks.
“I 100 percent back Walt (Steere) that as a town there could be some sticky points with this, but is that a risk we’re willing to take to support our residents of Glocester to make sure we are not going to be felons out here?” Worthy asked.
Worthy subsequently read the three page resolution, supporting the 2nd Amendment, and “protecting the rights of law of abiding citizens,” as well as stating that current state laws on the books requiring background checks and waiting periods for gun purchasers are some of the “most restrictive laws” in the country. It also stated that targeting all guns, instead of actual assault weapons was too broad.
Resident Roy Najecki, a Revolutionary War reeneactor, compared the gun bill rights situation to what occurred prior to the Revolution, when government officials were sent out to forcefully confiscate some weapons and register all of them.
“Same issues, different century,” he said.
He added that when it came to supporting the Constitution, Glocester officials initally balked because of concerns about a lack of Bill of Rights and other issues, including protection.
“It was not just being opposed to a tyrant 3,000 miles away,” said Roy. “They were concerned about 100 tyrants in Providence 30 miles away that were going to usurp local control, and we’re dealing with that here, with our zoning laws. It seems like Glocester people -maybe it’s the water or the air out here- always have wanted to protect our individual rights. That’s been going on for 250, 300 years now.”
The resolution passed unanimously.
I wish them luck in supporting the US constitution. Communities should make laws that make sense to them.
That is a lot of money the sportsmen paid for open space and to manage it.
If we enforced the laws that make sense and hold those accountable top down we would be living in a better place. That would require a lot of work with people that have character.
This is the process many Countries have gone through….register…then confiscate….then…well you go look at history…