NORTH SMITHFIELD – Councilors David Punchak and John Beauregard have joined forces to sponsor a resolution in opposition to the General Assembly’s proposed assault weapons ban, in a move that follows suit with 15 other Rhode Island cities and towns.
The resolution, shared this week with NRI NOW, states that in Rhode Island, “the limited gun violence that does exist is not from law abiding citizens who own firearms, but from criminals who pay no attention to any existing or proposed laws.”
“It naturally follows that any bills restricting the rights of firearm owners will have no impact on the criminal element responsible for gun violence,” the resolution notes.
Modeled after similar text passed by the Lincoln Town Council in March, the proposal comes in reaction to legislation passed in the House last week that would establish the Rhode Island Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025, as well as other bills that aim to further restrict firearms in the state.
“These bills not only penalize law abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional right for owning a firearm, but they also damage federally licensed firearms dealers, who are Rhode Island business owners,” the proposal notes. “They would most certainly restrict their sales and livelihood.”
Beauregard and Punchak submitted the resolution to be taken up as an agenda item for discussion and potential vote at the Town Council meeting scheduled for Monday, June 16.
Beauregard said he crafted the resolution after hearing from many constituents.
“I got quite a few phone calls on this,” he said. “I think they’re taking away our rights a little at a time. I’m not a big gun guy, but when they make these laws, they only affect the law-abiding citizens They’re disarming the general public and leaving them as victims of the bad guys.”
“In a perfect world, it would be great if there were no guns, but right now too many bad guys have them,” Beauregard added.
North Smithfield’s proposed resolution in opposition to the law notes that a Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions report found that Rhode Island had the lowest overall gun death rate and gun suicide rate in the country in 2022. It also states that the bill amounts to an unfunded state mandate, and that “the Town Council of the town of North Smithfield will not appropriate funds for capital construction of building space and/or the purchase of storage systems to store weapons seized, pursuant to any requirements set forth in the legislation if enacted by the General Assembly for the purpose of enforcing any law, that unconstitutionally infringes upon the rights of the People of the town of North Smithfield to keep and bear arms.”
If passed, the town’s resolution would be forwarded to every Rhode Island municipality, state senators, state representatives, the governor and the lieutenant governor requesting their support.
The state legislation banning assault weapons is now headed to the Senate with a possible vote expected in the coming days.
The problem with guns is not people who are responsible but the people who are irresponsible. What happens to someone who is irresponsible and their child gets a hold of their gun and shots a neighbor or friend by mistake. You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. We all do have constitutional rights like free speech but we now have a president who thinks if we disagree with his thinking we should arrested.
Is this some sort of confession Rick T? Trump doesn’t have anything to do with this conversation…
Actually JP there is nothing confessional about Rick’s statement at all. I actually know a family where the high school kid gained access to his dad ‘s gun and did not know it was loaded. He engaged high school friends in Russian roulette and he lost.
The dad was a very responsible gun owner, but the family was never the same. Oh, and by the way, DJT encouraged his insurrectionists at the capitol and many were very heavily armed.
Now you’re an expert on homicide / suicide – whichever it is that you are referring to. I get it. You don’t want ANYONE having a gun. You want to turn your life, prosperity and safety over to the government. I get it. That’s great. Good for you.
TDS & BDS are real!
I related a true story, unlike you and contrary to your insinuation, certainly do not consider myself an authority on homicide/suicide. Guns kill and have not made this society any safer, but sure keep yours….I personally could care less, but how many per person, or in the wrong hands are enough?
I support this resolution 100%
Thx Mr. Beauregard and Mr. Punchak for taking this matter up.
Why is it that many cannot discuss things without a put down of a poster? The more they disagree, the more intense the put down. Agree to disagree. Respectfully.
Glad to see NS taking this up. Your neighbors in Burrillville support your opposition to this illegal confiscation attempt.
“I’ve picked up more history books than you” . Apparently based on this statement that followed, anyone with a pulse, and an IQ higher than a shoelace that objectively believes President Trump is seriously comparable to Adolf Hitler or Putin, may have picked them up, but only looked at the pictures… btw Adolf was a big fan of citizen firearm confiscation.(Spoiler alert)
And Trump wants everyone like you and 1/6 protesters to have them!
Kudos for members to bring this motion to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and Citizens GOD given Rights to Keep and bear arms. The proposed state bill is radical and irresponsible which contradicts real world statistics as to what type of weapons are overwhelmingly likely to be used to maim injure or kill. Acting punitively to those who follow the rules and are responsible and to ignore those criminals (ie those who commit crimes and by definition DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!) is imbecilic. Speaking of which , comparing muskets (military rifles of their time) and to imply that the Right doesn’t follow travel to modern firearms is like saying freedom of speech is written and spoken is limited to in person and quill and parchment as of the time of its passing, and doesn’t cover modern modes of communication video, internet social media or other electronic communication . An “AR” is an Armalite Rifle NOT an Assault rifle which is a completely fabricated lie. It is also NOT a weapon of war and is owned and responsibly used by millions of American citizens daily. Continuing on the imbecile train, to compare a prima Donna social activist to use his nfl celebrity to attack the rule of law and those who pack the gear to enforce it , to the God Given Rights enumerated in the Constitution is clearly absurd. As a proud active duty veteran and having served our Country and Community for over three decades, I resent those that claim to know what veterans think, because you don’t. I applaud any family or friends you may keep that are veterans, and their service, but that is not you. So you may read more books but some of us , but some of us have picked up more real weapons of war and willingly put ourselves in harms way more times than we care to or want to remember, to have our fellow citizens rights stripped away in front of our eyes. We made an irrevocable oath to our God, our Country, and our Constitution and defend it against those who would threaten it. There truly something to be said to the old adage “Only tyrants and dictators fear honest armed citizens.” By all means if you choose not to enjoy the 2nd Amendment, God bless you, but don’t you dare impose revoking other citizens Rights with the reckless indifference of a toddler with a straight razor.
What kind of world do we live in our American Culture when support of God given Rights in place since the inception of this republic have become punk rock!? Congratulations it has.
It is a ludicrous bill, and only helps the criminals!
I hope this resolution passes, it shouldn’t matter the sponsors!
No matter which side of this issue you are on, it will pass due to Clare O’Hara’s go along to get along policy. Maybe we will be blessed with a few stories of how people were nicer in her younger years if we are lucky. Let’s be honest and call her a shill. It’s proven.
This should pass 5-0.
Have you ever listened to Claire tell her “stories” or do you just dismiss what she has to say right away? Inside her “stories” is important historical and institutional knowledge. She has a perspective on the council that nobody else has. She has also managed to get herself elected for the past five elections. Clearly the voters see Claire’s value and do not consider her anybody’s shill.
Seeing that she had some not so pleasant remarks for multiple things, to include the support for the Nike ban, insensitive remarks regarding native Americans, and flat out muttering under her breath during almost every meeting it seems like. She has changed her vote on more than one occasion after you voiced your displeasure or pleasantness for a subject. You sure you want to include her stories as a good thing, because the above also fall under that umbrella?
Thanks Donnie Donowitz but I’ll stand by my original comment. Claire has lots of character and class. The town is lucky to have her.
Thanks for the compliment? Great movie though.
Maybe the voters should be listening to Claire’s stories when she is lambasting students of color, Gabe Amo or any one of her other inappropriate calls to local radio stations. Claire and many of your previous comments made on these very pages are the reason that a code of conduct is needed in this town. By the way, in the case of censure, it does not necessarily mean losing the right to vote. It is a motion of chastisement made to caution individuals against the continuance of inappropriate behavior.
Absolute truth AND it should be 5-0. Thank you and David. Claire’s “stories” are well needed to listen to! The history needs to be preserved. I’ll keep my right to bear arms
I’m very surprised Ms. Alves and Ms. Decristofaro voted NO. Quite disappointed actually. Will remember that next cycle.
It’s a non binding issue that had zero teeth in it. I’m more upset that the issue wasted valuable time, which could’ve been used for something else. Imagine the work that could’ve been accomplished for roads, or debating improvements for infrastructure, or even budget concerns, or finally asset management.
Right! The whole 3 minutes it took. That could have been added to the 20 minutes “code of conduct” discussion. That’s super productive and exactly what the towns top priority is!
Actually code of conduct is needed. The conduct of some councilors and administrators has continued to decline. I’ll point out discrimination, ethics, and even dress and appearance have stood out a good portion of the meetings, and not in a good way. How many more lawsuits have to happen before the root cause gets fixed? How many times do they have to lead as an example of what not to do?
So of those “3 minutes”, you seem to miss out on other aspects. The time it took to plan, coordinate, draft, etc… took more than 3 minutes to do, only for it to be ceremonial and have no teeth to it. I’d rather have them spend that time thinking of ways to improve the already mentioned items.
https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/north-smithfield-officials-take-no-action-on-immigrant-protection-ordinance/article_5836b228-e2ae-11ef-b9fd-1b8356106fbf.html
Interesting. Was it okay back in February when KA and RD supported discussion on the “Municipal Immigrant Protection Ordinance”?
I mean, per the referenced article:
* “I have no intention of adopting this,” Alves said. “It’s just a hot topic in every city and town lately, and we just wanted to talk about this and show that what we do in the town…”
“Alves confirmed that the council had no plans to take action on the proposal, reiterating that its placement on the agenda was strictly for discussion.”
* “Council Vice President Rebecca DeCristofaro thanked Lafferty and noted that the council’s intent with discussing the ordinance was to ensure transparency and a shared understanding of law enforcement policies.”
Wasn’t that discussion also a waste of valuable time? Did we not have issues then with “roads, or debating improvements for infrastructure, or even budget concerns, or finally asset management.”
Please be specific with your answers in addressing the questions, not the questioner.
What questions? I only see one. I will however ask you more questions. Would the ordinance have actual teeth, compared to the resolution that just passed, which would have actually affected individuals in town?
There are two ? in my post, I asked two questions. You answered neither.
If it had passed?
“I have no intention of adopting this,” Alves said.
“Alves confirmed that the council had no plans to take action on the proposal, reiterating that its placement on the agenda was strictly for discussion.”
If it had passed? How???
In your post there is one, which was was it okay. I answered your question with a question, which would determine the outcome of the answer I give. As for the no intention of voting for it, there are 4 others that may have brought it to a vote. Thanks for trying.
Yes, I tried.
No doubt that’s a familiar refrain.
When logic or the truth can’t be used for answer; enter the incoherent word salad jumble. Not even worth the effort to have a rational conversation….
Just trying to feed you some literary ruffage, I hear it’s good for you. The fact is that my questions couldn’t be answered by them, as it would prove the false narrative they’re trying to push wrong. Tried and failed they have.
What’s clear here is that councilor Decristofaro is clearly only out for self interests. Many many many of those who voted for her were duped and wish they could reverse their vote. She selectively chooses when she is a councilor or an abutter to the quarry and now she wants to create the censorship board. Pretty sure she violated her own imposed code of conduct under admission last meeting. One and done …..buh bye.
Convenience of the town not being sued is pretty important. Do you want your already high taxes to go up from lawsuits? I sure don’t. I believe that her bringing the culture of HR to town council is wonderful. The only people upset about it, seem to be the ones that would be let go for repeated violations of it.
BM – it’s not surprising to me that you think that town may / can be sued because someone may have potentially referred to Ms Decristofaro as a derogatory term online!!
You obviously don’t understand the difference between an employee / employer relationship vs an elected & appointed official. I’m sure this is exactly what the people of NS who voted for her wanted her to be focused on – NOT!
Clearly you missed a step. 1. It is possible for an elected person to sue an appointed person, if it’s very clearly in the wrong from established rules, also needs to pass through one other hoop. What do you mean by possibly refer to her that way, thought it was well documented. 2. I was talking about how the quarry could sue due to bias, if they were to feel slighted.
Art: very disappointed that someone of your caliber has resorted to defaming a senior citizen female that has given her life to this town. This is an all time low for you with respect to sexist and age discriminatory remarks. Not sure what happened to you over the last few years. It’s quite unfortunate.
1 – Statutorily, you cannot defame a public figure. Also, he specifically attacked her conduct, not her character.
2 – How was anything he said ageist or sexist, when he mentioned neither? The only mention of sex or age came from you, not Art. If that’s what you got from his statement, that’s your own bias at play.
3 – ‘Giving your life to the town’ doesn’t absolve you of criticism. This is especially true if holding public office. Also, it’s not like she’s a cop that was gunned down in the line of duty. She worked for the town for a long time and collects a pension from it, so not exactly from the goodness of her heart.
Spot on, JoshW. I often find JP to be an interesting, thoughtful commenter, but he missed the mark here. It’s typically the woke crowd that purports to see bias where there is none. JP, meet AOC!
Actually, I’m very careful about what I say and how I say it. I never mentioned her age or sex. As Josh pointed out, that’s your bias showing. But as others have pointed out, she apparently has had many examples of being a person with a character, I myself would not endorse nor engage with. Now does that preclude her from being considered “a nice person”? Of course not. My grandmother was born in 1896 and was a “nice person”. But she was also 1000% a racist. So she was nice so long as you weren’t black. To me, that’s abhorrent.
Regarding her stories, nostalgia is a fickle mistress. When she talks about the good old days, all I can think is “What do you mean? Back when you couldn’t have a bank account without your husbands permission? Back when folks were allowed to be openly racist? Back when the businesses in town openly polluted their own workers?”. In my opinion, her stories add little to any debate.
Aside from your accusations, all I was pointing out is that she votes with Mr. Beauregard 99% of the time. Is she allowed to do that? Of course.
However, I will also state for the record that her behavior of muttering under her breath during meetings, eye rolling, and body posture are all fully unprofessional. Getting re-elected does not mean you’ve done a good job. I’m sure there are plenty in town that share her views on race and other topics. This fact does not make it right.
Lastly, since you seem to know me somewhat, I’m sure you can find my email. Feel free to reach out. I’m always open to discussion but I have no idea who you are JP.
The right to bare arms was not created after a rabbit hunting trip, it was added after they finished a rebellion and secured the right to govern themselves through the Revolutionary war. The intent was clear as a bell and any who claim we should not have weapons of war are fools who refuse to see what our forefather’s expected of us. The Founding Fathers saw the right to bear arms as a safeguard for liberty, enabling citizens to defend themselves and, if necessary, resist tyranny. This ties directly to their belief in a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed, where the people retain the ultimate authority to check or reform their government. The Second Amendment and the principles in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution reflect these ideas, emphasizing both individual rights and collective responsibility.
We certainly have the right to bare arms. I’m not disputing that: I’m as big a fan of tank-tops as the next person.
When it comes to what the Founders expected of us, you conveniently leave out that our form of government is a representative democracy. That means most decisions ought to be made by elected representatives of the people. Your view seems to be that decisions about how to deal with AR-15s were made in the late 1700s and cannot be altered except by amending the Constitution. That seems really silly to me. I’d rather have debate and deliberation about the matter with my fellow citizens and arrive at a decision that way. If the resolution passes over my objection, fine…that’s democracy at work. The state legislature’s choice is also democracy at work. But the claim that the 2nd Amendment means we can’t decide for ourselves how to deal with AR-15s? That we have to accept whatever some judges say the 2nd Amendment means? No thanks.
Our government is a representative republic. We are not a democracy
It’s actually both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy
Thanks to JP for getting this one right. Tim: a republic is, by definition, a representative democracy. They’re synonymous. “Representative republic” is a redundancy.
The U.S. government is best described as a constitutional republic with elements of a representative democracy. These terms are not mutually exclusive, as they describe different aspects of the system.
Constitutional Republic vs. Representative Democracy
Constitutional Republic: The U.S. is a constitutional republic because its government is structured by a written constitution (the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1788) that establishes the framework for governance, limits government power, and protects individual rights. Power is divided among three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful (separation of powers). The Constitution is the supreme law, and elected officials are bound by it, not by the whims of the majority. I’ll repeat that: NOT BY THE WHIMS OF THE MAJORITY!~~~
Representative Democracy: The U.S. is also a representative democracy because citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, rather than directly voting on every issue (as in a direct democracy). Elections allow the public to choose leaders like the president, members of Congress, and state officials, who then enact laws and policies.
In practice, the U.S. combines these concepts: it’s a republic because it’s governed by a constitution and elected officials, and it’s democratic because those officials are chosen through free elections.
The Senate is currently playing games and trying to sneak this weapon ban in for a vote by moving it from the Judiciary Committee where it currently does not look like it will make it to the floor to another committee as Sen Pamela Lauria tried to do Thursday. That attempt failed, 20 to 17.
Typical of the radical Left… can’t win playing by the rules, find a loophole or change the rules…
We cannot circumvent the rules to get around what is in our Constitution and outlined very specifically in the Second Amendment.
This will not stop the making of illegal ghost guns….
There is no constitutional right to own an AR-15. We are talking about weapons of war here, not handguns. I hope this resolution fails.
Amen. And the forefathers did not foresee the owning of assault weapons and ghost guns….
This is such a lame argument. Our forefather did also foresee Tanks, Nuclear Weapons, Drones and more. As the governments military might expanded why should a citizens right to bear arms not be expanded as well. I guess folks like you think we should only be allowed muskets. And no this is not a plea to be able to own a heavy military grade weapons.
Opponents don’t even think it through. They just follow their marching orders in order to remain in their “club”. No independent thought, no diversity of opinions.
Since Punchak sponsored this he’s now a Proud Boy, Oath Keeping MAGA mega Trumper according to Mary.
Hey Mary – I voted for Harris and I’m for this resolution, and I’m pro choice – what does that make me?? LOL
Have you even read the bill? It bans every firearm that accepts a magazine. It’s a ridiculous bill.
Any gun is and can be used for “assault”. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that at some point in time they will come for all the guns seeing they are “assault” weapons.
Regarding your lack of voting for David, he probably picked up a few hundred more votes here with this common sense resolution combined with now that you are against him lol. I’d say that’s a win!
Yeah, well Colin Kaepernick and Nike sunk JB, so don’t be so sure on that one.
Really ??? He seems to be doing well to me. Mary, I think you’re on the wrong side of this one, unfortunately.
If it was a specific make or exact caliber that would make more sense (not that I would agree) but at least that would be founded in some logic. Not some broad, ambiguous definition.
That’s like saying “we are going to ban all sharp knives”.
And at what point does the government stop? What’s next? We don’t “need” 6 or 8 cylinder vehicles? We don’t “need” 2,000 Sq. ft homes? Yes everyone agrees with common sense gun control, this is not it.
I don’t care how many constituents JB has heard from, the vast majority of gun owners believe in common sense gun laws. Owning and access to assault weapons is not a reflection of what the founding fathers had in mind regarding bearing arms. Regarding RI and gun safety, death can happen in any town, any school system, any public gathering, or your own home and one incident could place NS at the top of that John’s Hopkins list. John is not being left unprotected, nor is David, I assume. While I have never voted for John Beauregard, I have voted for David Punchak. He will never again get my vote.
If you think a war cant happen here youre an absolute buffoon who has never picked up a history book. Pathetic. Ask yourself why the Weimar republic’s strict gun laws didnt prevent Jews from dying to firing squads, matter of fact, when Hitler took power, all the Jewish gun owners were on a registry and they all ended up in extermination camps. You people arent the brightest, go calling Trump a dictator and Hitler and yet you willingly give up peoples firearms, whos going to defend you, your hopes and dreams? Wake up, fairyland isnt real.
I am quite sure, based on your writing that I have picked up far more history books than you. I expect that the people that will defend me will be those I know currently serving in the military. They will not be the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. If you don’t think that Trump, Hitler or even Putin are not dictators, you should return to school
Elitist mentality – “I’ve read more books than you”.
Ever notice who is at these riots and protests nationwide? I swore I have seen you on the TV a few times either in LA or NYC!
Goddamn right…no doubt in my mind. I certainly have read far more history books than Abel Collins, including Mein Kamph. Have you? And no, you have not seen me on tv at all protest.
Yes I am sure the fore fathers intentions were for everyone to have muskets indefinitely. On the contrary, these very smart men kept language broad as to not limit rights as weapon technology advanced.