Skip to content
Effective

Rhode Island Assault Weapons Ban (Effective July 1, 2026)

Assault WeaponsPenaltiesChapter 281

Rhode Island enacted its assault weapons ban through Chapter 281 of the Public Laws of 2025 (Senate Bill S 0359A),[1] creating new RIGL Chapter 11-47.2 ("Unlawful Sale of Prohibited Firearms"), which took effect on July 1, 2026 and is now in force. The law prohibits the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of "prohibited firearms" within the state. Possession itself is not a prohibited act under this statute, and the law contains no registration requirement.

Definition of Prohibited Firearm

The statute uses a characteristics-based definition. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has at least one prohibited feature qualifies. Prohibited features include: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, or a barrel shroud that allows the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned. The ban is based on a features test, not a named firearms list.[1]

Additional Prohibited Categories

Beyond the one-feature test for detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, the statute also prohibits: semi-automatic shotguns with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 6 rounds, any shotgun with a revolving cylinder, semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds, semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds, and any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a belt ammunition feeding device. Semi-automatic rifles with an attached tubular device capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition are excluded from the definition. The pistol prohibition applies only to fixed-magazine designs. Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines are not prohibited firearms under this statute, regardless of grip style, barrel features, or magazine capacity, although their detachable magazines are separately subject to the large capacity magazine ban under RIGL 11-47.1 if they exceed 10 rounds.

Continued Possession: What the Law Does and Does Not Require

The statute prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, and purchase of prohibited firearms, but does not prohibit possession. Persons who lawfully possess a prohibited firearm may retain it indefinitely. There is no mandatory registration requirement — the statute does not require owners to register, report, or notify any government agency about their existing firearms. Owners who lawfully possessed their firearms before July 1, 2026 did not need to take any legal action, and none is required now. Owners should maintain proof of possession predating the effective date (purchase receipts, dated photographs, or other documentation) in the event of any future dispute about lawful pre-ban ownership. The absence of both a possession ban and a mandatory registration requirement distinguishes this law from assault weapons bans in some neighboring states.

Transfer After July 1, 2026

After the effective date, a person who lawfully possesses a prohibited firearm may sell or transfer it only to a federally licensed firearms dealer or to an individual outside the state who may lawfully possess it. Transfer to another Rhode Island resident is prohibited.[1]

Penalties

A person convicted of manufacturing, selling, purchasing, or transferring a prohibited firearm faces imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to $10,000. The prohibited firearm is subject to mandatory forfeiture. There is no mandatory buyback or confiscation program and no provision for criminal penalties for possession.[1]

Exceptions

The exceptions are limited to lawful disposal and transfer pathways. Law enforcement agencies acting under authority of the United States, the state, or any political subdivision may import or purchase prohibited firearms and transfer them to FFLs or other law enforcement agencies. Federally licensed firearms dealers may transfer prohibited firearms to other FFLs, to law enforcement agencies, or to out-of-state individuals who may lawfully possess them. There is no general exemption for active military personnel, retired law enforcement, or individual officers acting outside their agency capacity.[2]

H8073 / S2710: Proposed Possession Restriction (Not Enacted)

During the 2026 legislative session, H8073 and its Senate companion S2710 were introduced to amend P.L. 2025, ch. 281 by removing the grandfathering provision and making possession itself a crime. Both bills were heard by their respective Judiciary committees in April 2026 and held for further study. The 2026 regular session adjourned sine die on June 11, 2026 without either bill passing, and they would need to be reintroduced in a future session. The enacted law, RIGL Chapter 11-47.2, does not prohibit possession and has not been amended. Owners relying on the grandfather clause are protected under the current law.

Legal Status

The law took effect as scheduled on July 1, 2026. As of late July 2026, no lawsuit has been filed challenging the Rhode Island ban and no injunction bars its enforcement.[2]

The surrounding case law currently favors enforcement. On July 21, 2026, the First Circuit, whose decisions bind the federal courts in Rhode Island, unanimously affirmed Massachusetts's analogous assault weapons ban on the merits in Recchia v. Campbell (No. 25-1817), relying on its earlier decisions in Ocean State Tactical and Capen. Any future federal challenge to the Rhode Island ban would face that adverse circuit precedent. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review on June 30, 2026 in Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), a challenge to Connecticut's assault weapons ban, consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238). One hour of argument is allotted in the October 2026 term, with no argument date set as of late July 2026. The question presented is whether AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. A decision in those cases could affect the constitutional analysis that would apply to the Rhode Island ban.