For the first time, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee has included an assault weapons ban in his fiscal year 2026 budget proposal. The measure aims to “prohibit the future possession, purchase, sale, control, and manufacture of assault weapons” in the state, according to a press release from the governor’s office. The proposal marks a significant shift in strategy for McKee, who has repeatedly asked the General Assembly to pass similar legislation in previous years but has yet to see success.
This move, as reported by Andrea Li in The Brown Daily Herald, creates new urgency around the ban. State Representative Jason Knight (D-Barrington, Warren) stated that placing the ban in the budget increases pressure on lawmakers to take action. “It has been on the table for years and years and years,” Knight said. “It is time to get it done.”
Support from Gun Control Advocates
Gun safety groups have enthusiastically greeted the governor’s decision. Caleb Schultz, co-chair of Students Demand Action at Brown, expressed optimism about the ban’s inclusion in the budget. Schultz noted that while gun control advocates have been working on this issue for years, McKee’s decision to incorporate it into the budget makes it seem “more likely” to pass than in previous attempts.
Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, also voiced hope for progress. She pointed to Senate President Dominick Ruggerio’s recent change in stance as a key factor. Ruggerio, who once argued that a ban should be handled at the federal level, has since revised his position, a shift Carden and other advocates see as an opportunity for meaningful change at the state level.
Criticism from Opponents and Gun Rights Organizations
Not everyone is in favor of the governor’s approach. Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz (R-Burrillville, Glocester, North Smithfield) criticized McKee’s decision, calling it an attempt to bypass the normal legislative process. In an email to The Brown Daily Herald, she argued that legislation should be crafted and debated by the General Assembly, not “hidden in the state’s budget.”
An Effort to “Strong-arm” the Proposal Into Law
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has also been vocal in its opposition. Michael Csencsits, writing for GOA, described the measure as an effort to “strong-arm” the proposal into law after previous attempts failed. He argued that similar bans in states like Maryland, California, and New York have done nothing to reduce crime, instead only restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
According to Csencsits, the proposal “directly infringes on the Second Amendment” and conflicts with past Supreme Court rulings, including Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
Concerns Over “Backdoor” Gun Control
The method by which McKee introduced the ban has sparked further controversy. Troy, the host of the gun rights YouTube channel 2A NEWS NOW, described the measure as a “backdoor assault weapons ban.” He claimed that since the legislature had repeatedly failed to pass a ban through standard procedures, the governor opted to “sneak it into the budget.”
Troy further criticized the proposal for including not only a ban on so-called assault weapons but also funding to restrict future possession, purchase, and sale of semi-automatic firearms—some of the most common guns owned by Rhode Island citizens. “What a piece of crap this guy is,” he said in his video, expressing frustration with McKee’s decision to tie the issue to budget funding rather than going through legislative debate.
The Legal Battle on the Horizon
The inclusion of this ban in the budget sets up a potential legal fight if the proposal moves forward. Gun Owners of America and other pro-gun organizations have warned that similar bans in other states have led to lawsuits, and they expect the same in Rhode Island. Csencsits emphasized that state bans on firearms have failed to deter crime, instead burdening legal gun owners with unnecessary restrictions.
A Challenge to Constitutional Rights
Troy, in his video, suggested that the move could spark a wave of legal challenges. “I can definitely see a lot of lawsuits coming the governor’s way,” he stated. His concerns echo those of other Second Amendment advocates, who argue that any attempt to ban firearms, particularly through an unconventional method like a budget proposal, is a direct challenge to constitutional rights.
A Political Gamble for McKee
McKee’s decision to embed the ban within the budget is a strategic risk. By doing so, he forces lawmakers to consider gun control alongside the state’s overall financial plan. This tactic could pressure legislators who might not support a standalone weapons ban but are reluctant to reject an entire budget over a single issue.
However, this strategy could also backfire. If the inclusion of the ban makes the budget too controversial, lawmakers may reject the proposal or remove the provision during negotiations. That uncertainty leaves McKee’s attempt at gun control hanging in the balance.
The Larger Debate: Gun Control vs. Gun Rights
This proposal is part of the broader debate over gun control in the United States. Advocates like Carden argue that, with federal gun legislation unlikely, states must take the lead in enacting bans on dangerous weapons. Opponents like Csencsits counter that such bans are ineffective and infringe on fundamental rights.
The divide between these viewpoints is stark. On one side, those in favor of stricter regulations argue that limiting access to assault weapons will save lives. On the other, gun rights groups insist that restrictions only impact law-abiding citizens while failing to curb violence committed by criminals.
Political Maneuvering?
Something is interesting about the way McKee has decided to push this issue forward. It’s not just about gun control – it’s about political maneuvering. His decision to place the ban in the budget rather than pursue it as standalone legislation shows a clear understanding of the obstacles in the Assembly. But is it an effective strategy? That’s up for debate.
What stands out most is the reaction. From Schultz’s optimism to de la Cruz’s outrage, from Ruggerio’s shift in stance to the legal threats from GOA, this move has lit a fire under both sides of the debate. That kind of reaction tells us one thing: this proposal matters. It’s not just another bill that will be quietly dismissed – it’s a political flashpoint that could define Rhode Island’s gun laws for years to come.
A Fight Far From Over
As the General Assembly reviews and revises the FY 2026 budget, the fate of McKee’s assault weapons ban remains uncertain. The proposal could be amended, removed, or passed as part of the final budget package. Regardless of the outcome, the fight over this issue is far from over. Gun control advocates are prepared to push for its passage, while gun rights activists are ready to challenge it every step of the way.
Rhode Island may be a small state, but the battle unfolding within its legislature reflects a national struggle. McKee’s budget proposal has brought the issue to the forefront once again, ensuring that the debate over gun rights and regulations will continue well beyond 2026.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.