Warwick council passes resolution opposing proposed state assault-weapons ban after hours of public testimony

The Warwick City Council on June 2 adopted a resolution opposing recently introduced state legislation commonly described as an “assault weapons” ban, after hours of public comment and extended debate among councilors.

The council’s final action was not a direct endorsement of any single version of state legislation; instead the adopted resolution (as amended on the floor) asked the General Assembly to (1) consider statutory language that more narrowly defines the banned weapons and (2) remove a provision in one House draft that would create a rebuttable presumption about when a weapon was acquired. The council also requested that any state law provide a clear process for issuing duplicate certificates of lawful possession to owners who lose or have damaged their paperwork.

Public testimony: The full council meeting drew a large turnout of residents on both sides of the issue. Supporters of the resolution (opposed to the state ban) said the proposals would criminalize law-abiding owners, harm local businesses that sell firearms and ammunition, and would not deter criminals who obtain weapons illegally. Speakers emphasized rights, economic impacts and property‑storage concerns. Other callers urged the council to support the state bill, arguing that high‑capacity and military‑style weapons have been used in multiple mass shootings and that an assault‑weapon prohibition would reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings; those speakers cited recent U.S. court decisions upholding similar state bans and said the proposed Rhode Island law includes grandfathering provisions and a voluntary certificate of possession.

Council debate and amendment: Council members spoke across the spectrum. Some councilors said the resolution in its original form risked alienating large segments of their wards and argued the subject was principally a state issue best handled by the General Assembly and its hearings. Other councilors said the council has a duty to register the city’s views, particularly because the bills would impose obligations (and potential fiscal burdens) on municipalities. A number of council members — while disagreeing on policy — sought language that might reduce legal risk and unintended consequences for disabled gun owners or others who rely on particular firearm features for safe operation.

Council President David Sanappi proposed an amendment (sub‑A) to narrow the policy request and to suggest a state‑level definition that some other states use. Councilman Napa proposed a second amendment asking the General Assembly to remove language creating a rebuttable presumption (a clause that would shift the burden of proof onto a defendant in certain prosecutions) and to require a procedure for issuing duplicate certificates of lawful possession. The council voted to accept the Napa amendment and then approved the resolution as amended.

Why it matters: The full council’s action is advisory to the state legislature but brings a municipal voice into the debate at the General Assembly. Council members on both sides said they wanted to avoid policies that unintentionally criminalize law‑abiding residents, create administrative burdens for municipalities, or leave owners uncertain whether they are compliant. The adopted language seeks changes at the state level to narrow legal risk and to address the administration of any certificate process.

What’s next: The resolution will be transmitted to Warwick’s legislative delegation and the General Assembly leadership. The state judiciary and legislature will make the final decisions about statutory language, enforcement details and whether to retain, amend or remove the contested provisions referenced by the council.