Posted on 09/02/2012 7:56:38 PM PDT by JohnPierce
“Deadly assault weapons … are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
--IMAGE HERE--
As the Republican National Convention comes to a close, it is time for me to live up to the promise I made when I wrote about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama. That promise was to give the Republican nominee the same skeptical scrutiny that I gave to President Obama. And just as in that previous article, I am limiting my discussion to gun rights issues only.
I think it is only fair to note that, going into this article, I had some preconceived notions. Surely whoever the GOP nominated would be a sympathetic figure from a gun rights perspective wouldn’t they? After all, isn’t the GOP the gun-rights party? Well as it turns out, maybe not if you are a Massachusetts republican.
In her speech at the RNC, Ann Romney alluded to this, noting that “You may not agree with Mitt’s positions on issues or his politics. Massachusetts is only 13% Republican, so it’s not like that’s a shock.”
But wait … Is it really that bad? What exactly has Mitt Romney said or done that could be construed as anti-gun?
Perhaps most widely reported is the claim that he signed an ‘assault weapons‘ ban while Governor of Massachusetts. In 2004 he signed into law S.2367 which has been reported to be a state version of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban. Now … signing a bill banning a large category of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15 which is one of the most popular rifles selling in America today, would definitely be a direct attack on the Second Amendment. But is that actually what Governor Romney did?
Actually no. Prior to S.2367, Massachusetts already had an ‘assault weapons’ ban in place. S.2367, which cleaned up a number of aspects of Massachusetts’ draconian gun laws, simply updated the existing law to include the definition from the federal ban instead of merely incorporating it since the federal ban was slated to sunset. The NRA goes into detail on their site about why the bill was in fact a victory for Massachusetts gun owners.
However, Governor Romney sullied the signing of this bill by making the comment that I opened the article with in which he parroted the words of the anti-gun forces and demonized so-called ’assault weapons.’ He may have not signed a ban, but his words tell us that he probably would have signed such a ban if it were placed before him.
What else has he done? In 2003, he signed a bill to increase firearms license fees from $25 to $100. To be fair, he proposed that the fee be increased only to $75 and the legislature instead took it to $100. But that still means he proposed a 300% increase in the cost to exercise what he has stated he believes to be a constitutional right. And he ultimately signed a bill making the increase 400%. This may seem trivial to many but it is a huge burden on those living in poverty. For many working families, such a fee effectively denies them the right altogether.
Dan Gross, relatively new president of the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) had glowing words for Governor Romney when his record for gun control is compared to that of President Obama; “In their time in office, I would say with a pretty strong degree of certainty that Romney did more.”
Yet amazingly, in 2007 when speaking to the NRA via videotape, he made the astonishing claim that “As governor I worked closely with the NRA and The Gun Owners Action League to advance legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state … We made it easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights.”
--VIDEO HERE--
“Really? That’s what you think you did? Really?”
Because in the real world, forcing people to pay $100 to exercise a fundamental right is not making it ‘easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights!‘
In the real world, calling popular sporting firearms “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people” is not ‘expanding the rights of gun owners!’
Governor Romney has known for some time that he needed to reform his image with gun owners if he ever wanted to have a shot at the presidency. His efforts in that regard have not inspired confidence.
He joined the NRA as a life member in the summer of 2006, stating that “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement … [and I] joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.” That sounded a little too mercenary for most NRA members who join not for personal benefit but rather because they want to protect the right to keep and bear arms.
And the stumbles continued. In 2007, in an interview with The Glenn and Helen Show, he claimed “I have a gun of my own” in response to a gun owner’s question only to have to admit days later that this was not in fact true.
In late 2007, in an interview with Tim Russert, he reiterated that were he president, he would sign a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban if it made it to his desk although he quite seriously assaulted the english language in doing so.
“Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I.”
More recently, in an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow on July 23rd, 2012, he was asked about S.2367. Rather than clarifying the issue, he choose to give a political answer which only alarmed gun owners further (emphasis added):
“Well, actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill. Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like. The idea of one party jamming through something over the objection of the other tends to divide the nation, not make us a more safe and prosperous place. So if there’s common ground, why I’m always willing to have that kind of a conversation.”
Given his earlier demonization of ‘assault weapons’ and his continued support for a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban, this answer leaves gun owners wondering whether a ‘President Romney’ might not support significant future gun control legislation if it were pushed by a bi-partisan group. It certainly does not inspire the kind of confidence one would like in a presidential candidate that is asking us for money and grassroots effort on his behalf.
While the NRA has not endorsed Governor Romney, he has received the official endorsement of outspoken rocker Ted Nugent but not before Romney reportedly pledged over the phone that “there would be no new gun laws or restrictions on Second Amendment rights in his administration.” I must say that a phone pledge is not the kind of reassurance I would like before opening my checkbook and hitting the streets for a candidate.
Perhaps the only thing that could be said with some degree of certainty is that a ‘President Romney’ would almost certainly nominate more pro-gun judges than would President Obama. And that is no small issue. During his first term alone President Obama has appointed two Supreme Court justices, 35 Court of Appeals judges, and 139 district court judges.
And these judges affect our rights in very real ways and will continue to do so for years to come. As I noted in my article about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama, Heller was only decided by a 5-4 majority. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority.
McDonald v. Chicago was also only decided by a 5-4 majority with the same 5 conservative justices as the majority. Revealingly, President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent characterizing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as “not fundamental”.
And here are some more numbers that should worry gun owners: Justice Scalia is 76 this year. Justice Kennedy is 75. If either of those justices decides to step down or suffers a health problem during the next four years then you can rest assured that any nominee President Obama puts forward will not vote the right way on the next gun rights case, many of which are already working their way up through the courts of appeal.
On the other side of the coin, Justice Ginsburg is 79 this year and Justice Breyer is 73. If either of these justices were to retire from the court, there would be an opportunity to shore up the slim majority that we currently hold in the Supreme Court.
I do believe that a ‘President Romney’ would likely be far better for gun rights than a second-term President Obama for the reasons laid out in my previous article about President Obama. But those reasons are all based on the anti-gun tendencies of President Obama rather than any significant pro-gun tendencies on the part of Governor Romney. I truly dislike rewarding someone for past bad behavior but politics is not an easy game and ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’ is the rule rather than the exception more often than not.
The potential federal judgeship appointments alone should be enough to get gun owners to offer their support to Governor Romney but I don’t think it is enough to truly energize them. After all, we are talking about a man who has the support of both Ted Nugent and Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign.
I am not afraid of strict gun laws in countries where the laws have been in force for several decades. For example Japan and UK have strict gun laws. But they also have very low gun related crimes because even the bad guys have a hard time getting guns there.
US is another situation. Every law breaker in US owns guns. If the anti-gun people can show me how do they propose to disarm the bad guys, I would be willing to hand over my guns. So long as the bad guys have guns, I am 100% with NRA. It is stupid to disarm the good guys when there is no way to disarm the bad guys.
On top of all that, I also believe an armed citizenry is a great firewall against dictatorship.
Now, however, Romney is portrayed as the conservative, and a loss by Romney will be trumpeted as America being ready for Conservatism, and as the Tea Party being dead.
Again, smart conservatives understand this and will vote for Romney.
Silly, egotistical, bullheaded and stupid conservatives will give Obama another 4 years.
“We lost in the Primary because idiot, egotistical, bombastic, ridiculous people on our side could not unite behind a single candidate.
Now, however, Romney is portrayed as the conservative, and a loss by Romney will be trumpeted as America being ready for Conservatism, and as the Tea Party being dead.
Again, smart conservatives understand this and will vote for Romney.
Silly, egotistical, bullheaded and stupid conservatives will give Obama another 4 years.”
Romney isn’t a conservative, anyone who is intellectually honest won’t make that claim. Of course, the GOPe is everything to everyone, but not honest.
US immigration to Australia is obviously insignificant...yet.
If you call seeking better opportunities for economic freedom as cut and run, I have no problem. Have you forgotten why your ancestors risked everything to immigrate to US? It was FREEDOM and opportunity for better life!
The author missed Romneys recent NRA interview. They asked very specific questions and he gave the right answers. Of course, he’s a politician .....
For me that would be "code" for:
If When, after the elections, a bear mob attacks me in the woods streets of MD, I would rather have an assault rifle AK-47 than a handgun
Of course ,my Model 1300 (which seems to have fallen into hot water and shrunk to a total length of 25-3/4 inches and sprouted a pistol grip) would also serve nicely in close support...What's the "code" word for flechettes?)
This is politics and public relations.
In other words, what I think, as an individual, does not count.
What you think, as an individual, does not count.
The PUBLIC PERCEPTION will be that conservatives lost, if Romney does not win.
If Romney does not win, our next Republican candidate won’t even be as conservative as Romney.
WE HAVE TO WIN THIS ONE!
Mitt Romney on Gun Rightrs: Protect the Second Amendment
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights
As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the Second Amendment protects one of the American people’s most basic and fundamental individual rights: “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” The Second Amendment is essential to the functioning of our free society. Mitt strongly supports the right of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including hunting, recreational shooting, self-defense, and the protection of family and property.
Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. He also recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation.
Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. He worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms, while opposing liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen. As governor, he also designated May 7th as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.”
As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt and shoot. He also will defend the right of individuals to protect their families, homes, and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.
Mitt Romney warns NRA against an ‘unrestrained’ second-term Obama
“Mitt Romney drew a warm reception from the National Rifle Assn. on Friday as he attacked President Obama for “employing every imaginable ruse and ploy” to restrict gun rights, which Romney pledged not to do if elected in November.
Although gun control groups have complained that Obama has done little to support their cause, Romney took a page from the NRA leadership, which has been saying that the president is waiting for a second term to crack down on firearms. He warned that Obama would “remake” the Supreme Court in a second term, threatening constitutional freedoms.”
‘Now, however, Romney is portrayed as the conservative, and a loss by Romney will be trumpeted as America being ready for Conservatism, and as the Tea Party being dead.
Again, smart conservatives understand this and will vote for Romney.
Silly, egotistical, bullheaded and stupid conservatives will give Obama another 4 years.”
Well said.
Democrats are counting on some conservatives becoming “useful idiots” for the Democrats by not voting or voting third party, thereby reducing the votes Romney gets, which helps Obama get reelected.
>> “They are now just another political fund raising scam more interested in access to political power then the facts.” <<
.
The truth is that the NRA has been the author, and promotor of every gun limiting federal law on the books since 1968.
I love your analogy!!!
The public doesn’t matter. The base, if the country does not collapse, will demand a conservative. The GOPe will argue the public wants a liberal, but I don’t think they can force a second RINO on us after their outrages.
Obama is the enemy, he must go.
“Part of Obama’s plan is to destroy industries dominated by Conservatives.
What do you think Obama will do with another 4 years?
Obama is the enemy, he must go.”
The dominoes are already falling. I won’t waste my time hope and changing for Mitt.
“If a bear attacks me in woods, I would rather have an assault rifle than a handgun.”
You would assault an innocent denizen of the woods? No wonder you are a FREEPER :)
Well this was pretty easy to find. I’m surprised that the author didn’t cite this report from a Massachusetts Second Amendment group. It puts his article in a whole different light.
“The Romney Record”
A GOAL Special Report
Mitt Romney’s Record as MA Governor
Second Amendment - Legislation
The Romney Record
A Look at Governor Mitt Romney’s Record as Governor of Massachusetts as it Relates to the Gun Owners and Sportsmen of Our State
Prepared by: Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) - February 2007
Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts from January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
General Comments
In the first months of the Romney administration the Governor isolated himself to all but a handful of close advisors most of whom came from the business community. This caused the Governor to make some rather serious political missteps that could have been avoided through better communications. However, relations dramatically improved and in the end, GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.
The two major events that eventually led to this improved relationship were the raid on the Inland Fisheries & Game Fund in 2003 and a botched press conference/bill signing in 2004. Both situations are outlined in this report.
While at the time these events greatly angered GOAL members, the result was much improved access to the Governor’s office and his staff. During the following years, senior level Romney staffers met on a monthly basis with GOAL’s Executive Director to discuss and work on any issues relevant to GOAL’s members. This should not be taken as an indication that GOAL “controlled” the corner office, but rather that a very good working relationship was developed that benefited both parties.
Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.
Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. 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. A summary of this legislation follows.
Budgetary: In the Governor’s first year, he made a political error when he submitted a budget that did away with the Inland Fisheries & Game Fund. (More of this is explained below.) Fortunately, after this matter was resolved, GOAL was able to establish better communications with the Governor’s office. In working with the legislature and the Governor we were able to restore the Fund and increase the money released from it to better manage the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Over the next three years, GOAL was also successful in getting some “capital revenue” released to acquire land for the Division.
Regulations: During his administration, the Executive Office of Public Safety passed a new regulation providing free replacement of firearm licenses to those who had them stolen or lost. (A resident license fee in Massachusetts at that time was $100 every 6 years.) Prior to this new regulation a citizen would have to repeat the entire application process and pay the whole fee to acquire a replacement license.
Policy: His administration conducted a review of the state’s Environmental Police agency (Game Wardens). One major concern was to keep in place the hiring requirement that officers needed to have some environmental education background not strictly law enforcement. This was a policy that GOAL worked to support.
Fees: In 2003 Governor Romney filed budgetary language to raise firearm license fees from $25 to $75. That year the legislature actually raised them to $100 in the General Appropriations bill (Section 34 of Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2003). At that time a resident license was good for 4 years. In 2004 a law was passed increasing the license term to 6 years.
In 2005, Governor Romney waived the administrative fees for the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund. The state currently charges these fees that were as much as 36% a year. Gun Owners’ Action League worked with environmental organizations to urge the Governor to temporarily waive the fees until permanent legislation could be passed to do away with the fees all together.
Appointments: One of the agencies that GOAL watches very closely is the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. This agency is run by a strong seven-person board. The appointments to this board are spread out over several years so that drastic changes cannot be made to it in any given year. During his administration, Governor Romney made five appointments to this board. All of the individuals appointed to the board were supported by GOAL.
Proclamations: During his administration, Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day”. The proclamation was issued on this date to coincide with GOAL’s Annual Banquet.
Read the rest: http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
-------------------------------------
To Hell with "common ground", it's got to be constitutional ground!
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.