Make no mistake: the potential for the Rhode Island legislature to adopt a bill banning the sale of virtually every centerfire semi-automatic rifle on the market is still there. But the bill's passage got a little harder this week thanks to a parliamentary move by Senate President Valerie Lawson. 

Lawson is a co-sponsor of the gun ban bill, which would outlaw the sale of all gas-operated semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine. But on Thursday, when another Democrat tried to move the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where members are rumored to be deadlocked on the ban, Lawson ended up rejecting the request. 

In the Senate, Sen. Pamela Lauria asked Senate President Valarie Lawson to transfer the House-passed ban from the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Lawson sent it on June 11, to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is believed to have a better chance of passage. 

Former Senate Majority Leader Ryan Pearson appealed Lawson's ruling, citing the Senate's own "Rule 7.9," which says:

"Any senator may object to the committee assignment for any transmittal received during the previous legislative day. Upon objection being made, the presiding officer shall assign the transmittal to the committee requested by the senator making the objection," unless another senator objects. In that case, "the presiding officer shall call for a vote of the Senate on any motion for assignment." 

That didn't happen.

What happened instead was a vote to uphold Lawson's ruling, which passed 20-17, after Senate Republican Leader Jessica de la Cruz argued that another rule requires all bills involving the "penal code" go to Judiciary.

Beneath the process and drama is the fact that the Senate president did not take an action that would undoubtedly have made it easier to pass a bill co-sponsored by a majority in the Senate, which she says she supports.

I'm so used to Democrats playing fast and loose with parliamentary procedures and eve state law that I'm honestly shocked Lawson and other Senate Democrats voted to keep the bill in the Judiciary Committee where it belongs instead of shifting it over to the friendlier territory of the Finance Committee. 

The gun ban proposal has far more to do with criminalizing the sale, transfer, and possession of semi-autos than the loss of revenue that would accompany any such ban. Supporters aren't trying to enact the prohibition so the state will have less sales tax revenue to work with. They're trying to outlaw the most popular rifles in the country, and the Judiciary Committee is the most appropriate body to consider the bill in committee. 

This is good news, but gun owners aren't out of the woods yet. The legislative session is slated to run through June 30, so there's still plenty of time for anti-gunners to lobby Lawson to change her mind, and to apply public pressure to those Democrats who voted to keep the bill in the Judiciary Committee. Until the committee takes up HR 436 and votes it down, I'd consider it a live threat in the legislature. 

The Second Amendment community in Rhode Island has been downright inspiring in their willingness to show up by the thousands at the statehouse to testify against the gun ban bill, and I have every confidence that they'll continue to flood their state senator's offices with their opposition to the gun ban proposal. In a couple of weeks we may be able to celebrate a substantial victory, but a victory lap right now would be premature. 

While it's too early to celebrate the defeat of Rhode Island's gun ban, it's the perfect time to celebrate our Second Amendment freedoms! Help Bearing Arms defend the right to keep and bear arms by becoming a VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum member today. Sign up here and use the promo code POTUS47 for an incredible 74% off!