Skip to comments.Obama backs semi-auto ban revival, Romney still battling stain of Mass. law
Posted on 10/18/2012 8:17:01 AM PDT by marktwain
President Barack Obama has come out of the closet on guns, acknowledging during his second debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney that he would like to see if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
Almost immediately, chat groups and gun rights forums began heating up almost as quickly as moderator Candy Crowley steered the conversation away from Operation Fast and Furious, which Romney interjected into the debate. He noted that it was the greatest failure weve had with regards to gun violence.
Obama didnt have to explain how this operation happened on his watch, or why he extended executive privilege to thousands of subpoenaed documents, even though Romney specifically raised the issue.
This was a program of the government, Romney said about Fast and Furious. For what purpose it was put in place, I cant imagine. But its one of the greatest tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration, which I think the American people would like to understand fully. Its been investigated to a degree, but the administration has, has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. Id like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence; thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
But Crowley shifted the focus to an oft-maligned gun law Romney signed while he was Massachusetts governor, thus deflecting the conversation away from the scandal. However, according to the official website of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, many gun rights activists may be off-base about what Romney did.
There has been some suggestion that Crowley, who came under criticism for what appeared to be a rather partisan treatment of the debate, deliberately changed the focus to a subject that is widely known to be Romneys supposed weakness with the firearms community.
On some forums, the partisanship of gun owners was striking. Apparent Obama voters panned Romney for having signed a semi-auto ban while possible Romney backers tried to keep focused on Obamas desire to renew the ban, which expired in 2004.
According to GOAL, however, Romney critics may be mistaken.
GOALs website says the legislation signed by Romney in 2004 actually watered down the 1998 ban enacted under a previous administration.
The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998, the GOAL explanation maintains. It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the assault weapon ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor (Romney), someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.
Additionally, GOALs website reports that, During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governors desk.
Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law, according to GOAL. His administration also worked with Gun Owners Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006
GOAL goes into considerable detail to explain what really happened under Romney.
The following is what the bill actually did, says GOAL.
Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served. For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.
Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.
Extended the term of the states firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.
Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.
Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.
Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.
Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.
Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a drivers license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3 x 4.
Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.
GOAL Communications Manager Mike Sweeney confirmed to TGM that this information has been available for quite some time on the website. He said Romney was faced with an anti-gun legislature that would have saddled Massachusetts gun owners with considerably worse regulations, and the bill Romney signed actually benefitted those gun owners.
The debate came on the heels of an announcement by the Romney campaign that several prominent outdoorsmen and women, and firearms industry leaders, had created Sportsmen for Romney. It was an 11th-hour political bid, but names on the advisory panel read like a Whos Who in the firearms community.
Sportsmen for Romneys National Advisory Board includes Bob Nosler, CEO at Nosler, Inc., Coni Brooks with Barnes Bullets, B.A.S.S. founder Ray Scott, William Bill McGrath with Safari Club International, Rob Keck and others.
Scores of politicians are on the honorary advisory panel, and the national co-chairs of Sportsmen for Romney are Johnny Morris, Wade Boggs, Kim Rhode, Melissa Simpson, Richard Childress and Jeff Foxworthy.
The organizations existence, announce only three weeks prior to the election, may be too little too late to influence a major shift in the outdoors community, however. Yet polling data shows Romney either holding even with or gradually pulling ahead of the president, depending upon whose poll one relies.
The second debate may not have changed too many minds, but there is no Sportsmen for Obama group rising to the surface, and there has not been anything similar since the quiet demise of the American Hunting and Shooting Association (AHSA), which was seen by many as a partisan front group.
A final debate is scheduled Monday, Oct. 22 in Florida. That one is supposed to deal with foreign policy, and that may allow Fast and Furious to come up again, because the operation allowed some 2,000 guns to be walked across an international border and contribute to a bloody drug war in a neighboring country.
They revoked the right to keep and bear arms for a simple misdemeanor?! WOW! I’m glad they clarified all of this, but I’m not comfortable with any language that revokes Second Amendment protections except in the case of violent crime.
I’m still holding my nose to vote for Romney, esp. considering that I’m an issues voter on guns, but I’m glad this article marginally clarifies what happened in Mass.
Gunwalker / Murdergate ping.
The article says “Crowley shifted away’ from Fast aand Furious. Obama had nodded to her twice to get her to cut off what Romney was saying and she evidently didn’t see the nods from him. Then he said “Candy” and she stopped Gov. Romney in his tracks about Fast and Furious. You have to read the audio portion of the debate to make sure you heard the Pres. say her name; and watch the video to see him nod his head.
Wouldn't it make more sense to ban shooting people except in defense of self or others?
Of great interest for those who don’t trust Romney on GUNS.
Good clarifications here without msm spin.
Mr. Obama, any weapon can be an assualt weapon if one uses it to assault another.
It really does not matter what the weapon looks like or how its mechanics function.
What matter is the intent of its human wielder.
Is he talking about the Chevy Volt?
That’s a Semi Auto.
Worse. Status quo. Better.
Take your pick.
In just two sentences, they imply Romney doesn't read the bills he signs and tosses his Lt. Gov under the bus as well...
Oh yes... Much better. :-\
Not with this sycophantic devotion to the GOP no matter how far Left they drift.
I will be voting for the one that is most pro gun.
Wrong. You are voting for the candidate that is merely Second Worst on gun issues.
Don't kid yourself.
Gun laws are working so well in Obama’s home town of Chicago.
If we want less killings we should ban those doing the killing. Yeah we know who they are.
I’m voting to terminate the employment of the guy who was raised from his mother’s knee to hate this country and Western Civilization itself, and who has promised to throw the castle gates open to the encircling barbarian hordes.
Not because he is the best choice. Not because I think he shares any of our principles... Just because he's not Obama.
I do not try to kid myself or spin fairy stories that Willard is in any way a "conservative". He's simply a better choice than Zero...
I can respect that stance; though I mightily disagree with the thought that he is [simply] a better choice. I believe that a Romney presidency could indicate [to the GOP] that there is no need to run anyone who actually is 'conservative' as they can win with liberals, that the changing of the President's political party will trigger a "we did something" thought in far too many people for them to continue to wake up to the out-of-control corruption of our government. In that [longer-term] sense, I see Romney as being a worse choice.
Think of it in terms of normalization; electing Romney only normalizes the party toward a 'liberal' state of mind. To put it to a specific point, consider abortion; given the "of course rape, incest, and cases of the mother's health exceptions should exist"-thought, to which Romney ascribes, how long until embracing such exceptions is not a disqualifier for the 'pro-life' label? Arguably that point is now: Romney is being called pro-life, yet wishes to allow the killing of the innocent because of the crimes of their parents.
Of course not The Big Two have seen to it that you never will, either.
Unfortunately for the Governor (Romney), someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.
really ??? sounds more like the gov didnt even know *what* he was signing, and then he tripped over his own johnson to proclaim that 'assault weapons' dont have any purpose other than to hunt down and kill people...
just like 'w' promised, *if* the CONgress gets AWBII to his desk, he'll sign it...
not to mention the midterms and 2016 that could likely undo the gains in place, or the 'bi-partisan' bills that will sail through because 'R' CONgresscritters will back the prog pres...
Gilb, this country WONT exist if Romney loses....so it doesnt matter,
You hear that one yet?
I've heard it, and I reject it; it is not because of "who the people choose" [as a leader] that the country is destroyed, but the heart of the country itself. -- IOW, God destroys countries because of their injustice, because if they sought Him they would not fail utterly to do justly.
I must admit that even I don't have a crystal ball to tell how things will work out. And I do well with predictions.
I see the Dems on MSNBC are making an argument that the economy is getting better and the next POTUS will inherit that, and it better be Obama.
I am naturally very skeptical looking at the deficits, national debt, real job numbers (not the phony ones). Will the next guy drown or glide?
BTW Gilb, I got called a Obama-operative a few hours ago, can ya beat that? today?
He is clearly on record as supporting the Federal Assault Weapons ban and said that he would have signed the renewal if it hit his desk. I can fetch the footage of him saying it if need be. Do you deny that those were his words?
On second thought, I will just go ahead and post the vid. Go to about the 1:00 mark and listen to his reply to Russert.
Amen, Brother. Go down the page and see posts 26 and 27.
“Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with the gun he doesn’t own.”
Ouch / appropriate.
Your posted article does not come close to explaining his actually history and prior positions and is, in fact, a whitewash of his history.
I am a professional gunsmith. I own a gunshop, and renew my FFL every three years. Do you really want to challenge my position and credentials on this issue?
I posit that once he is in office he will do whatever is in his heart. You may claim to know how easy he will be to “push” and I hope you are correct. However, I am a bit cynical based on my knowledge of the FACTS of his history and prior positions. Keep your sophistic propaganda and I will continue to look at the facts.
OK; I admit I was, I’ll buy into it, but I will still be watching every 2nd Amendment move he makes, including USSC appointees.
If he doesn't promote or sign any anti-2nd legislation, nor state any anti exec order, second worst is good enough. And a damn sight better than first worst.
I think the chances of any gun control getting passed in a Romney administration is about zero. Why would he go there?
I am not challenging your credentials. They do not have much to do with the issue. The people who were on the ground in Massachusetts say that Governor Romney worked with them to reform the gun laws there for the better.
I was not there, they were. Politicians make lots of statements. Actions are what count.
Exactly the right attitude. The more pressure we bring to bear, the more we get what we want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.