Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone III could be the deciding factor in whether the state passes an assault-style weapons ban this year.
Unless he’s not allowed to be part of the discussion.
The Rhode Island Ethics Commission is slated to issue an advisory opinion at its meeting Tuesday on whether Ciccone’s status as a federal firearms dealer prevents him from participating in deliberations and decisions on gun-related bills. Ciccone, a Providence Democrat, requested the advice of the state ethics panel in an April 30 letter, one day after he was selected Senate majority leader by a majority of his Democratic peers.
It’s the first time the 77-year-old lawmaker has sought an ethics opinion regarding his ability to influence gun-related policies, despite having served in office since 2003, and held a Class 1 federal firearms license since the 1980s, The Providence Journal reported.
Ciccone did not respond to multiple inquiries for comment Friday.
However, in an April interview, he downplayed the significance of his firearms business, based out of his home in Silver Lake. Ciccone said he only sells one gun per year, usually to a friend or family member. In his letter to the ethics panel, obtained by Rhode Island Current, Ciccone further made the case for why his side hustle should not force him to step out of discussions or votes on gun bills, invoking an exemption within the state’s own ethics laws.
The ethics panel’s response could sway the outcome of the biggest issue on Smith Hill this year. Ciccone has already made it clear he doesn’t support the assault-style weapons ban, at least as drafted by Senate sponsor Lou DiPalma. But Senate President Valarie Lawson is one of the bill’s co-sponsors.
Lawson and Ciccone serve as ex-officio members on all Senate committees, and could cast tie-breaking votes to determine whether the bill advances out of the 10-member Senate Committee on Judiciary — similar to the power exerted by former Senate President Dominick Ruggerio and former Majority Leader Ryan Pearson to advance a contested abortion access bill to the floor in 2023.
Invokes ‘class exemption’
The ethics code states that there is no substantial conflict of interest if an elected official or person in decision-making authority does not benefit, or lose out, to a “greater extent” than anyone else in their business, profession, occupation or other type of affected group.
The Ethics Commission has relied on this clause in previous decisions, granting, for example, approval for a state lawmaker who owns a fire alarm installation business to vote on legislation related to credit requirements for fire suppression systems, and for a lawmaker married to a dentist to vote on a bill regulating dentistry.
Last year, the ethics panel ruled that Lawson, then the Senate majority whip, could vote on pension-related changes despite her job as president of one of the state’s two largest teachers’ unions. It concluded that Lawson would not benefit any more or less from pension changes than the other 68,000 retirees and active state workers and teachers, including 400 of her union co-workers.
The ethics panel in 2002 gave similar advice to Ciccone when he asked for an opinion on potential conflicts on pension bills, given his career with the Laborers’ International Union of North America and participation in the state retirement system.
Ciccone contended the same logic should be applied to his ability to vote on gun bills, noting that there are 70 licensed federal firearms dealers across the state.
“Although this may appear to be a small group, it comprises the entire industry within the State,” Ciccone wrote in his letter. “Consistent with the ‘class exemption’ set forth in [state law], “no substantial conflict exists where the individual members of an entire group are impacted equally.”
Ciccone also wrote that if a separate bill that only impacted a subset of federal firearms dealers were to be brought forward, he would seek a separate advisory opinion or recuse himself from the vote.
John Marion, executive director for Common Cause Rhode Island, said the size of an affected group is one of several variables considered in a potential conflict of interest. For example, the panel in many prior opinions stressed the importance of “the function or official action being contemplated by the public official” and “the nature and degree of foreseeable impact upon the class and its individual members as a result of the official action,” in determining if a class exemption was applicable.
“The Ethics Commission’s work is very fact-specific, and without knowing all the facts involved in both legislation and his business, it’s hard to prejudge,” Marion said in an interview. “Like many things in our ethics law, it doesn’t hang on a single number.”
What took him so long?
Noting Ciccone’s long history in state politics and votes on other gun-related bills such as safe storage requirements — signed into law in 2024 despite Ciccone’s vote against it — Marion said Ciccone should have likely sought an ethics opinion years ago.
Especially because Ciccone has run afoul of state ethics rules before. In 2008, Ciccone was fined $1,500 for failing to report his positions as a state senator and a union consultant on 2005 and 2006 financial statements.
However, Marion acknowledged that Ciccone’s recent ascension to the Senate leadership team would warrant a new ethics opinion, even if he’d already requested advice in the past.
Three Democrats who serve on the Senate Judiciary committee voiced opposition to the assault-style weapons ban legislation during a preliminary hearing Wednesday, while a fourth, Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino, has previously indicated he also does not support the bill.
Gov. Dan McKee and House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi are both backing the assault weapons ban, with McKee making his priority clear by also including the policy change in his proposed fiscal 2026 budget.
This article was originally published by the Rhode Island Current.
