What I fear Trump will do with his war

Centralize even more power and curtail even more civil liberties

Robert Reich

Friends,

One of my goals in writing this letter to you every day is to alert you to dangers to our democracy so you can alert others, who then alert others, and by this means we enlarge and strengthen our bulwark against the tide of fascism.

Wars pose particular challenges to democracy because nations at war often become more xenophobic and willing to give those in power extra leeway to protect the homeland. That’s an underlying danger in Trump’s war with Iran.

Trump has already tried to use three pretexts to usurp power — terrorism, national emergency, and war itself — to justify his mass deportations, universal tariffs, and consolidations of power. And he has tried to use these to gain legal legitimacy under laws that give presidents additional power when the nation is threatened.

Federal courts and public opinion haven’t allowed him to go as far as he wished. But if Trump’s war with Iran escalates — which it’s almost certain to do if Iran retaliates — courts may be reluctant to impede a commander-in-chief and the public may be willing to go along.

I fear that Trump’s war with Iran will enable him to use these three pretexts — terrorism, national emergency, and war — to further suppress dissent at home, narrow freedom of speech and expression, make warrantless searches and arrests of Americans, imprison opponents, and put more military onto our streets.

Trump diplomacy

ICE is not the Gestapo

Forestry Bills Pass Through Both General Assembly Chambers

Legislation provides tax breaks to Rhode Island logging operations

By Rob Smith / ecoRI News staff

Will a small tax break for forestry vehicles lead to greater clear-cutting of Rhode Island’s forestland, or will it boost a flagging industry?

It’s been a minor, but lasting debate in the General Assembly this year. Legislation (H5098/S0679) introduced by Rep. Megan Cotter, D-Exeter, in the House and Sen. Jacob Bissaillon, D-Providence, in the Senate would provide foresters and logging companies with a tax break on their vehicle registration, similar to an existing break already given to the state’s agricultural sector.

Forestry businesses reporting gross revenue less than $2.5 million would be eligible, receiving a special license plate to affix to company vehicles used actively in forestry operations. Both pieces of legislation were approved by both chambers on Wednesday.

The tax break given to forestry businesses is far narrower than what was originally proposed, at least in one chamber. A previous draft of the Senate bill, for example, expanded the tax break to forestry product operations equipment, parts, and other related industrial goods used by forestry businesses.

Supporters say the legislation would provide relief to a small industry of micro-businesses and large landowners, such as the Department of Environmental Management, who contract out logging work to help manage woodlands.

“If we want our forests to survive the next hundred years, we need to support the people who are willing to do that work now,” Cotter said during a House floor debate Wednesday. “We do not protect our forests by ignoring it, we protect our forests by actively managing it and that means protecting the people who do the work.”

Some environmental groups expressed concerns about any tax breaks to boost the state’s logging industry. In a letter submitted to lawmakers about both parity bills, some groups protested equating logging to agriculture, and warned lawmakers it could mean destroying Rhode Island’s biodiversity, expand invasive species populations, and damage soil health.

“Our native forests are not crops on a farm,” the letter read. “They are not tree plantations. Forests are shaped by nature, self-perpetuating, and able to survive without human interference. Logging natural forests is not farming.

“We are not opposed to logging taking place in areas that are not old growth forests, natural heritage areas, or other rare forest habitats,” the letter continued. “Nor are we opposed to logging planted tree farms. However, taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay more taxes so the timber industry pays less in taxes.”

The letter was signed by the Old Growth Tree Society of Rhode Island, the Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council, the Rhode Island Nursery and Landscape Association, and the North Smithfield and Cumberland Land trusts, among others.

Despite its Ocean State moniker, Rhode Island contains vast tracts of forest. The latest Forest Action Plan completed by DEM estimated Rhode Island has some 366,958 acres of forest, about 53% of the total land area of the state. Most of it is considered second-growth forest, and almost all of it, 96% is classified as timberland, meaning it exceeds the minimum level for productivity and can be harvested.

Much of the forestland in Rhode Island, about 70%, is held in private hands. DEM only owns and manages some 57,000 acres of state-owned forests. Nearly 60% of all woodlands in the state is classified as core forest, unbroken, unfragmented areas greater than 250 acres in size.

While the numbers sound, and are big and impressive, compared to other New England states, Rhode Island’s forests, and by extension, the logging industry, remains a dwarf among giants. The state only has about 90 jobs in the forestry and logging sector, and as of 2019 gross annual sales were only $11.6 million.

That’s not to say Rhode Island forests aren’t under threat. A key point of controversy over the past decade in many municipalities across the state has been the clear-cutting of forestland for ground-mounted solar installations. A 2024 study by the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program estimated the state had lost nearly 4,000 acres of undeveloped forestland to solar development.

There is some protection for state forests, at least from solar development. In 2023 lawmakers passed protections that prohibited core forest areas, which typically carry stronger local protections as well, from being axed to build solar projects.

Meanwhile, supporters of the parity legislation, which includes members from both parties, characterized opposition to the bills as misinformation, and maintained on the floors Wednesday it would boost the state’s smallest businesses.

Rep. Michael Chippendale, R-Foster, said the bill was hardly going to attract new logging companies to start chopping down Rhode Island’s forests.

“It would cost more to set the corporation up than you would save under the tax break,” he said. “These are small businesses that are using the byproduct of other businesses.”

EXTREME HEAT ALERT: Protect your pets from heat death

Trump regime dropping federal legal actions against corporations who paid Trump

Justice for sale: Ticket-fixing on a massive scale

By Rick Claypool 

“Corporations First.” That’s the slogan that would truthfully describe the Trump administration’s approach to law enforcement, not “America First.”

A new investigation by my organization shows that the Trump administration is dropping investigations and enforcement actions against corporations that showered money on Trump’s inauguration earlier this year.

Seventy-one big businesses, which were facing at least 102 ongoing federal enforcement actions at the time of Trump’s inauguration, collectively gave a whopping $57 million to the Trump-Vance inaugural fund, we found. And many may now be collecting special favors.

Trump’s inaugural haul from corporations facing investigations and lawsuits alone is comparable to the total amount raised for the inaugurations of President Obama in 2009 ($53 million) and Biden in 2021 ($62 million). And it’s just a third of the record-breaking $239 million Trump collected overall, $153 million of which came from corporate donors.

Compromises on assault weapons, casino smoking and CRMC reform mark end of 2025 session

You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you might not even get what you need

On some key issues, General Assembly opts for baby steps

By Nancy Lavin, Christopher Shea and Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current

Rep. Teresa Tanzi, a South Kingstown Democrat, speaks in
the House chamber on Friday, June 20, 2025.
(Photo by Nancy Lavin/Rhode Island Current)

Explosive debate over assault-style weapons — what types of guns and owners to restrict, if any — carried through the final day of the 2025 legislative session Friday.

After a series of failed attempts to weaken and strengthen a proposed limit on assault-style weapons, a ban on sales and manufacturing — but not possession —  ultimately prevailed.

True to form, lawmakers found plenty more to debate and discuss over the marathon day that stretched late into the evening. 

As the sun went down, the temperature inside the airless second-floor chambers seemed to rise. On what was the first full day of summer, lawmakers quenched their thirst with Del’s frozen lemonade and an endless carousel of caffeinated beverages.

Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone donned shorts in an unusually casual fashion choice, displaying a rarely seen calf tattoo of his late dog, Gunther.

Senate softens state’s aim on assault weapons 

You can still own an assault-style weapon in Rhode Island, but can’t buy or sell it. That’s the gist of the legislation approved by both chambers in an eleventh-hour rework aimed at appeasing at least some of its critics.

The rewrite was led by the Senate, which kicked off its marathon session with an hour-long debate, culminating in a 25-11 vote, to approve the bill banning the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns with military-style features beginning July 1, 2026. It does not address inheritance of these weapons.

“The expectation over time is the proliferation of assault-style weapons, as specified in the bill, will go down,” Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat and bill sponsor, said. “We need to get this done today.”

The Senate’s checkmate forced the House, which had already approved a more restrictive version that also banned possession, to reconsider. The lower chamber eventually caved to the Senate’s less stringent counterpart by a 43-28 vote just before 9:30 p.m.

The House’s vote came after a nearly two-hour break likely marked by behind-the-scenes negotiations, and an additional, five-minute recess for representatives to familiarize themselves with the Senate’s changes.

“This bill cuts off the supply of weapons of war for the long haul at the point of sale,” Rep. Jennifer Boylan, a Barrington Democrat and gun safety advocate, said. 

Rep. Jason Knight, a Barrington Democrat, also backed the Senate version, despite its significant changes from the more sweeping ban he had successfully advanced through the House chamber already.

“The two bills in their effect on the ground are closer to each other than you think,” Knight said, noting that the difficulty in procuring a new assault-style weapon even in other states prevents expansion of the “universe” of such weapons in Rhode Island.

Yet, the compromise was met with some dissatisfaction from both sides. The Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence had denounced the “watering down” of what had been a much more sweeping ban on assault-style weapons. 

Sen. Pamela Lauria, a Barrington Democrat, sought to amend DiPalma’s bill to mirror the House version, despite the Senate Committee on Judiciary opting to hold the stronger option for further study on Wednesday. 

“As we look to pass critical legislation regarding assault weapons, we should have taken the opportunity to pass the best version of this bill,” Lauria said.

But after Senate Republicans, along with Ciccone, raised objections, Senate President Valarie Lawson ruled that Lauria was out of order.

Republicans, along with some conservative Democrats, and gun rights groups maintained that no ban at all was the answer. All four Senate Republicans, plus some conservative Democrats, voted against the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault-style weapons.

Across the rotunda, Cranston Rep. Charlene Lima, a conservative Democrat, also denounced the compromise bill for going too far. Her critiques were met with raucous applause from yellow T-shirt-wearing Second Amendment supporters seated in the gallery. House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi issued a stern rebuke, noting the seriousness of the topic before them.

“We will not have interruptions,” Shekarchi told onlookers. “If there is another uproar, I will close the gallery and you can watch on TV.”

Despite the warning, gun rights advocates booed after the House passed the amended bill.

The final version drew support from Everytown for Gun Safety, which maintained the language still covers the majority of the assault-style weapons frequently used in mass shootings. The Rhode Island AFL-CIO, a strong supporter of Lawson, also backed the proposal in a statement Thursday pointing to the union’s February poll that found 64% of residents support “banning the sale and manufacture of military-style assault weapons” in the state. 

Gov. Dan McKee, who had posed the weapons ban as a budget issue earlier in the year, confirmed via social media he will sign the measure into law.

“I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence,” he posted to X at 9:50 p.m.

Clearing the air in R.I.’s two casinos

Bally’s two Rhode Island casinos will be slightly less smoky starting in 2027 — 18 months later than its advocates wanted.

The delayed start combined with a second, late-in-the-session clawback prompted longtime advocate and sponsor Rep. Teresa Tanzi to withdraw her name from her own bill after the opposite chamber added a carveout for smoking bars within casinos. Tanzi was one of four Democratic representatives to vote against the bill she introduced, though it prevailed with 67 supporters in the House Friday.

Tanzi, a South Kingstown Democrat, railed against the revised proposal, declaring it was “nothing like” her original, which had called for the smoking ban to start July 1, 2025, with no exceptions.

Rather than banning smoking in Bally’s Corp.’s Lincoln and Tiverton casinos altogether, the amended legislation adds an exemption for smoking lounges with a new, hazy definition, Tanzi argued.

“This does not prevent Bally’s from expanding cigarette smoking or cigar smoking or vaping or, I don’t know, cannabis,” Tanzi said. “It’s really not clear to me what this new definition is because there’s all of a sudden a brand-new definition about smoking lounges.”

Existing state law defines “smoking bars” as businesses where tobacco sales are greater than 50% of its total revenue. The amended version offers new meaning for a – “pari mutual facility smoking lounge,” defined as any kind of smoking bar with a “proper ventilation system” that will “prevent the migration of smoke to nonsmoking areas.”

In Tanzi’s interpretation, that means any walled-off section of the casino floors could remain a smokers’ paradise.

The Senate already approved the modified smoking ban under a unanimous vote Wednesday. Though Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski sponsored her chamber’s version, Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone brokered the compromised legislation after initially seeking to reach an agreement between Bally’s and union leaders to expand existing nonsmoking areas at the Lincoln facility. 

Bally’s Corp. officials had opposed the proposed smoking ban, citing a potential annual revenue loss of $30 million to $60 million. Company spokesperson Patti Doyle thanked legislators for the compromise.

“Confining smoking to an existing smoking lounge at our Lincoln venue and allowing for a delayed transition away from smoking on the gaming floor will hopefully mitigate a portion of that anticipated revenue loss to the state,” Doyle said in a statement late Friday.

Union workers who for years have decried the health consequences of smoke-filled working conditions reluctantly agreed to the compromise version as “the best we could get,” Tanzi said Friday. However, the union wants to revisit the topic when lawmakers reconvene, either in a possible fall session in October or when it starts its next regular session in January, Tanzi said.

“I had a lot more faith in our legislators,” Vanessa Baker, an iGaming manager at Bally’s Twin River Casino in Lincoln, said in a phone interview Friday. “I thought they thought we were people.”

15th time’s a charm on payday lending reform

Cracking down on predatory payday lending practices drew strong support in the Rhode Island Senate Friday. The 27-6 vote came swiftly and with little debate — a stark contrast to the 15-year battle to move the legislation out of committee to the chamber for a vote.

Having already passed in the House with unanimous support Monday, the Senate’s endorsement sets the stage for the long-awaited end to triple digit interest rates on short-term, small-dollar loans — though not as soon as some advocates had hoped. A last-minute revision delayed the start date till January 2027 in an effort to give time to the “deferred deposit providers” like Advance America to wind down operations, and for their employees to find new jobs.

Under existing law, these storefront lenders had been able to take advantage of a loophole in state law to charge an annual percentage rate up to 360%. The legislation caps the annual interest and fees at no more than 36%, mirroring policies already adopted by 22 states and the federal government.

Kicking the can on a bottle bill

Rather than start prescribing specifics of a deposit-refund program for recyclable bottles, glasses and cans, both chambers approved a modified bottle bill Friday that advances only a small component of the original calling for yet another study of the policy. 

The 53-11 and 36-0 votes in the House and Senate, respectively, came with reluctant support from Democratic backers who blamed opposing retailers and beverage manufacturers for mounting a misinformation-laden opposition campaign.

“There is still a great deal of conflicting data as to the implementation of best practices to address the problems of improving and disposing of our recyclable products, as well as enhancing our anti-littering efforts,” Shekarchi said in a statement earlier this week.

Rep. Carol McEntee, a South Kingstown Democrat and bill sponsor, also expressed disappointment, stating outright that the watered-down version is not a bottle bill at all, calling just for a series of studies.

Instead, the legislation calls for a “statewide implementation analysis” to be conducted by a third-party consultant hired by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. The study would now be due no later than Dec. 1, 2026, with an interim status report due April 1, 2026. The state-hired consultant would consider the conclusions drawn by an 18-month legislative study commission, and the original bottle bills.

McEntee, who co-chaired the prior study commission, has already indicated she’s planning to introduce a full-fledged bottle bill again next session, even though the state analysis will not be finished yet.

CRMC membership changes on the horizon

Change is coming to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, though not the sweeping reform advocates wanted. Rather than abolishing the politically appointed council and reshaping the agency as an administrative authority, lawmakers in both chambers narrowly agreed to a more modest update.

The bills, approved by 49-19 and 25-10 votes in the House and Senate, respectively, Friday, reduce the size of the council from 10 to seven members, simultaneously shrinking the quorum requirement in a nod to the vacancy issues that have plagued the existing panel. And it adds new professional qualifications for the powerful coastal regulatory body, specifically requiring an engineer, a coastal biologist and an environmental organization representative to sit on the new council. 

The existing council does not have any expertise requirements, though members must represent a variety of municipalities based on size and coastal proximity.

How fast the refresh occurs depends largely on how fast new candidates can be found; the legislation calls for Gov. Dan McKee to name six appointees (the seventh is designated as a DEM representative) no later than March 1, 2026. But the bill also says existing members can continue to serve until their replacements are named.

Progressive Democrats and Republicans joined in opposition, with the former insisting the membership changes fell too far short of more comprehensive reforms needed.

Legislators reprimand McKee with anti-bid rigging bill

McKee just can’t seem to escape the stain left by a 2021 state education contract scandal, with an anti bid-rigging bill included on the legislature’s final calendar of the session.

The Rhode Island Senate’s unanimous approval Friday, following passage in the House two days prior, aims to close a loophole in state procurement law by expressly forbidding public officials and administrators from intentionally interfering with the process by which the state awards competitive contracts to outside vendors. 

The need for specificity was laid bare by an investigation by Attorney General Peter Neronha’s office and Rhode Island State Police into a state education contract awarded to the ILO Group. State investigators ultimately found insufficient evidence to charge McKee for steering the $5.2 million school reopening contract to one of his former adviser’s friends — in part because there was nothing in state law saying that he could not.

The newly approved legislation, however, imposes strict penalties on state officials and vendors who participate in future collusion or bid-rigging activities: a felony charge punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1 million fine (or three times the value of the contract, whichever is greater). Vendors found to have participated in bid-rigging or steering activities are also no longer able to perform work for the state for up to five years.

McKee still needs to sign the legislation for it to become law — uncertain given documented attempts by his aides to dismantle the bill earlier in the session. McKee’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment later Friday.

Opposition couldn’t break levy bill

The General Assembly OK’d Providence Mayor Brett Smiley’s request to exceed the state’s annual 4% tax levy cap, clearing the way for a 7.5% increase in the amount of property taxes the city can collect in fiscal year 2026.

Providence Democrats Rep. Rebecca Kislak and Sen. Sam Zurier introduced the bound-to-be unpopular bill in their respective chambers. 

The House was the first to grant the city’s wish, passing Kislak’s bill in a 56-17 vote on May 27. The Senate passed Zurier’s version 30-7 on Wednesday. On Friday night, each chamber voted to concur with the other’s version of the bill, finalizing its passage out of the State House and toward McKee’s desk.

In the House, Zurier’s bill passed 57-14, with opposition from all 10 Republicans plus four Democrats, including Providence Reps. Enrique Sanchez and David Morales. In the Senate, Kislak’s bill passed 27-7, with Providence Democratic Sens. Sam Bell, Tiara Mack and Ana Quezada expressing disapproval similar to their House colleagues.

The extra revenue from the tweaked levy cap is meant to help resolve a budget shortfall introduced last November by a $15 million settlement between the city and the state’s education department over Providence’s public schools. The mayor, with the Providence City Council’s somewhat reluctant approval, has been counting on the levy measure as the critical piece in the city’s fiscal 2026 budget. While the mayor’s budget technically lowers property tax rates, new property valuations mean many homeowners will still see higher tax bills.   

WPRI-12 reported Wednesday that Smiley has asked McKee to sign the legislation as soon as it arrives on his desk. But even with the General Assembly’s blessing, it’s not clear if the added tax revenue will arrive in time to shore up the city’s fiscal 2026 budget, Smiley told the news station. 

Kratom clears Senate

For the second year in a row, a bill to regulate the psychoactive drug known as kratom arrived at the final night of the legislative session. Unlike last year, when the bill provoked a fierce debate in the Senate, it sailed through the chamber with a 22-9 vote.

The House version encountered more vigorous resistance when it went up for a floor vote on May 29. It passed 40-24, with a mix of Republicans, Democrats and one independent lawmaker decrying easier access to the plant-derived drug, which can be used as an opioid substitute or a stimulant.  

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy, a Westerly Democrat, and Sen. Hanna Gallo, a Cranston Democrat, with the intent of bringing kratom — a product already available in gray markets like gas stations or head shops — into the sphere of regulation and taxation. This year’s bill is 25 pages, compared to last year’s six, and it would mandate strict labeling, testing, and age restrictions around kratom commerce, as well as limitations on what products could be sold mixed with kratom.

Last year, McKee vetoed the legislation — an outcome sponsors tried to avoid this year by working with the governor and the state health department to craft a more agreeable bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

King Donald has it all under control

Medicaid's impact on Rhode Island

Where psychos thrive

“Dark” personality thrives in societies with corruption and inequality

University of Copenhagen, Department of Psychology

A new global study shows that people in societies characterized by corruption, inequality, poverty, and violence are more likely to develop aversive, “dark” personality characteristics such as selfishness or spitefulness.

Why are some people more inclined to cheat, manipulate, or harm others for their own gain? A new, comprehensive study with data from nearly 2 million people across 183 countries and all 50 US states points to an important answer:

It is also a matter of the society in which one grows up.

Dark personality as a survival strategy

The study, published in the scientific journal PNAS, examined how aversive social conditions (high corruption, inequality, poverty and violence) are linked to what they call ‘The Dark Factor of Personality’. This is the essence of aversive (“dark”) personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism.

By combining personality questionnaire with objective data on countries’ (and US states’) social conditions assessed approx. 20 years before, the researchers found a clear – albeit moderate – relation:

‘The more adverse conditions in a society, the higher the level of the Dark Factor of Personality among its citizens. This applies both globally and within the United States,’ says Ingo Zettler, professor at SODAS and the Department of Psychology.

URI vertebrate expert offers guidance on ways to keep turtles and wildlife safe in summer

Let's start with not running them over with your car or lawn mower, and then more

Kristen Curry

Photo Tyler DeVos

It’s turtle season, according to a professor of natural resources science at the University of Rhode Island who specializes in reptiles and amphibians.

In southern New England, Eastern box turtles and other species of native turtles lay eggs in early summer, after becoming more active and sometimes crossing trails and roads, beginning in May. 

While watching for turtles on roadways during the summer months is one important way to preserve local turtle populations, New Englanders can help protect native turtles year-round with increased awareness.

At URI, conservation biologist Nancy Karraker focuses primarily on the consequences of environmental change for reptiles and amphibians. She has examined the impacts of habitat loss and degradation, pollution, climate change, invasive species, and disease on biodiversity in North America and Southeast Asia, and consults and collaborates across the country and around the world.

Her work is applied science, she says.

“It’s not enough to say, ‘watch out for turtles on roads,’” she says, “though we do want people to do that.”

Trump takes us into war with Iran. Now what?

Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

Ian Parmeter, Australian National University

After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.

Early Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 meters beneath a mountain.

These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.

WTF? "Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.

We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.

Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.

Bad air toady

Federal Judge Deems Trump Administration’s Termination of NIH Grants Illegal

Order killing medical research grants is "void and illegal" but does Trump care?

By Annie Waldman

What Happened: A federal judge ruled on June 16 that the Trump administration’s termination of hundreds of grants by the National Institutes of Health was “void and illegal,” ordering some of them to be reinstated, including many profiled by ProPublica in recent months.

District Judge William G. Young made the ruling in two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s directives and cancellations: One case was brought by more than a dozen states’ attorneys general, and the other was led by the American Public Health Association alongside several other organizations and researchers.

In Monday’s ruling, the judge determined that the directives that led to the grant terminations were “arbitrary and capricious” and said they had “no force and effect.” The judge’s ruling ordered the funding of the grants to be restored. It only covers grants that have been identified by the plaintiffs in the cases.

Rhode Island House Minority Leader Chippendale spews venom on partial Assault Weapons Ban

And I refute his bogus claims

By Will Collette

Mike Chippendale issued the news release below blasting the General Assembly for its passage of a much-watered down assault weapons ban. But he’s not concerned that it’s weak – my point of view – but that no legislation restricting any gun rights whatsoever should be enacted into law.

I think he’s wrong and I have taken the editorial prerogative to add my rebuttal to the RI Repubican Party’s news release, printed in full below.

My comments appear in bold red after each of Chipper’s claims.

State House, Providence, RI – Rhode Island House Minority Leader Michael W. Chippendale offers the following statement in regard to the Assault Weapons Ban legislation:

The passage of the amended Assault Weapons Ban marks a dark day for constitutional governance in Rhode Island. What was once presented as a public safety measure has now been fully unmasked as nothing more than a political trophy - an opportunistic maneuver by a handful of ambitious politicians desperate to elevate their public profiles and position themselves for higher office.

“Dark day for constitutional governance?” Really? The Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to regulate automatic weapons and rejected a Rhode Island lawsuit that tried to stop passage of this bill.

These are the very same lawmakers who, just weeks ago, decried administrative pay increases of $80,000 as irresponsible during a time of budget crisis. And yet, with full knowledge that this bill will trigger immediate and expensive legal challenges, they voted to expose our already strained state budget to the guaranteed costs of defending an unconstitutional law in court. The price tag? Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of taxpayer dollars. Their hypocrisy is staggering.

I guess Republicans now understand the best way to communicate with the public is to engage in what Trump calls “riffing.” That’s going off the point into tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. What the hell do administrative pay hikes have to do with banning weapons of mass death?

Let’s call it what it is: political theater, funded by the citizens of Rhode Island. These politicians are not standing on principle - they are using this bill as a weapon in their own political campaigns. Whether it's an attempt to deny the Governor a policy victory or to bolster their own bid for Attorney General, their actions are driven not by public safety, but by personal ambition.

Well, yeah Mike. Politics is mainly theatre. Your own remarks on the assault weapons ban are nothing more than that.

Worse still is the blatant disregard for the Constitution. These elected officials - who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - have shredded that oath for the sake of a headline and a talking point. They know this bill flies in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court precedent in Heller and Bruen. They know it targets law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to disarm criminals. And they know it will fail in court. Yet they voted for it anyway.

When there's "no school Foster-Glocester," watch out for Mike
exercising his 2nd Amendment rights 

Again, Mike, the Supreme Court has already ruled on states’ rights to ban or control a wide range of weapons. That’s why you are not allowed to own nuclear weapons or to mount a machine gun on your truck to handle the commute from Foster to Providence. You can’t have a rocket launcher either. Simply put, the Second Amendment is not absolute.

This legislation is nothing more than an insult to the law-abiding firearm owners in Rhode Island. It criminalizes the continued lawful purchase of firearms that are legal, stored safely, and used responsibly. It also undermines our eligibility for vital federal conservation funds, jeopardizing public land maintenance and our outdoor recreation economy. It will harm Rhode Island businesses, cost us jobs, and decrease revenue - all in the name of political ambition. And just as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban – it will not stop a single crime, as criminals simply don’t follow the laws of our state and nation. To believe this ban will have any different result is naïve at best, and dishonest as worst.

I think what worries most reasonable people is the fact that military-style automatic weapons are designed to give the owner the ability to kill a lot of people very quickly. They are not for hunting or self-defense, with the possible exception of a zombie apocalypse.

In my opinion, the bill does not go far enough. In an attempt to placate gun people, the provision to ban the possession of these weapons was taken out of the bill. That was a mistake since it is demonstrably impossible to placate gun people.

Let’s also not forget the deceptive tactics employed to manufacture support for this bill. National groups like Everytown deliberately manipulated our public input process, misleading both the public and this legislative body. Their email campaigns were engineered to trick gun rights supporters into submitting pro-ban messages. These dishonest tactics further erode any credibility the supporters of this bill claim to have.

The truth is evident: this legislation is legally vulnerable, fiscally irresponsible, economically damaging, and wildly unpopular with the people of Rhode Island. Opposition at the State House outnumbered supporters by an overwhelming margin. The public testimony was clear. The emails to legislators have been unmistakable.

Of course there will be lawsuits. There always are. But the chances this ban will hold are very good.

Will it hurt the economy? Selling guns in Rhode Island is not exactly a key to economic growth and prosperity. How much is it worth to prevent a major massacre in a school, shopping center, beach or church?

And Mike, you are a liar to claim that banning assault weapons is “wildly unpopular” with Rhode Islanders when poll after poll show strong support for a ban and for additional sensible gun control measures. Even among gun owners. The most recent poll shows 64% of Rhode Islanders support the assault weapons ban. Counting yellow shirts in the peanut gallery at the State House is not a legitimate measure of public sentiment.

What just passed was not a thoughtful policy - it was a campaign stunt. And the people of Rhode Island will be the ones who pay the price.

Like most Rhode Islanders, whatever that price should be, I am more than willing to pay.

I remain committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Rhode Islanders and will oppose every attempt to erode them in the name of political ambition.