Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
During the debate last night, Mitt Romney was asked about his support of Brady and a ban on assault weapons.
MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.
I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-guy lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to — to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d — I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.
I do not believe we need new legislation.
I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.
I think it might be helpful to review Dave Kopel’s thoughts on Mr. Romney’s views of the Second Amendment and gun ownership as published in National Review.
Romney’s Record Similarly, this year’s presidential candidate from Massachusetts has a thin record to back up his claims of support for the Second Amendment. On his website, you can find two accomplishments:
First, in 2004 he signed a bill which reformed some aspects of the extremely severe and arbitrary gun-licensing system in Massachusetts. This would be an impressive accomplishment if that were all the bill did. But the bill also made the Massachusetts ban on “assault weapons” permanent. (The previous ban was parasitic on the federal ban, which expired in September 2004.) The bill that Romney signed was a compromise bill, approved by both sides in the Massachusetts gun-control debate and widely supported by both parties in the legislature. The NRA considered the bill to be a net gain, but it’s hardly the unalloyed, pro-rights success that Romney now claims. As governor, Romney declared his support for banning so-called “assault weapons.”
The other accomplishment noted on the website was Romney’s signing of a 2005 bill that improved some technical details for hunting with muzzle-loading guns.
Other than the 2005 proclamation, there is little evidence of executive leadership by Romney on Second Amendment rights; rather, he tended merely to accept reform bills which could pass even the Massachusetts legislature.
But Romney occasionally considered the Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature too soft on gun owners. In the summer of 2002, the Massachusetts house overwhelmingly passed a bill to relax the state’s lifetime ban on gun ownership for persons convicted of some misdemeanors. Faced with a bill that had passed the left-leaning House by a huge margin, Governor Romney declared his opposition, while allowing that he would back a much “more narrow proposal” (Boston Globe, July 17, 2002, page B4). (The narrower proposal was eventually included in the 2004 bill which he did sign.)
Running for re-election in 2002, he bragged, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” At the least, Romney generally didn’t show leadership in making Massachusetts’ terrible gun-laws even worse. For example, his 2002 anti-crime plan included no new gun control (Boston Herald, August 21, 2002).
Conservative? Hmm. Let’s continue.
Romney’s website brags about how he balanced the Massachusetts budget “without raising taxes.” That depends on what the meaning of “taxes” is. Unmentioned on the Romney website is how he dealt with a state budget gap: namely, by quadrupling the fee for a Firearms Identification card (FID) to $100. Without a FID in Massachusetts, you are a felon if you possess a single bullet, even if you don’t own a gun. The FID card is required even to possess defensive pepper spray. Thus, an impoverished woman who wanted to buy a $15 can of pepper spray was forced by Romney to spend $100 for the privilege of defending her own life (North Shore Sunday News, August 8, 2003).
This year, Romney has been portraying himself as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. But when he was interviewed by Glenn and Helen Reynolds, he displayed little understanding of the Second Amendment and had difficulty articulation anything more than platitudes and slogans.
Conservative? Paying $100 to carry pepper spray? Let’s continue.
Unreliable Friends of Convenience Mitt Romney’s attitudes on guns — like his double flip-flop on abortion — appear to have more to do with political expediency than with conviction. While an expedient and cynical “friend” like Mitt Romney would probably be better for gun owners than would a sincere and fierce enemy like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it is still worth wondering what President Romney would do if his political calculus changed yet again.
George H. W. Bush was another gun-rights friend of convenience, who (like Romney) bought himself a lifetime NRA membership shortly before running for president. And when circumstances made it convenient for Bush to become a gun-control advocate instead of a Second Amendment defender (only a few weeks after he took the oath of office and swore to defend the Constitution), Bush switched sides, and spent the remainder of his administration promoting restrictions on the Second Amendment.
Whatever that day's promise happened to be, eh?
Your statement is incorrect- He worked with the NRA and GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) *not* the GOA (Gun Owners of America).
Here is what the GOA has to say about Mitt's bill:
This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to "soften" the blow. What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) doesn't have much good to say about Mitt Romney at all.
Those are YOUR choices, friend, not mine.
Thanks for that post.
The NRA wont endorse Mutt or Rudy.
They didn’t endorse in 92 or 96.
Mutt or Rooty nomination = landslide loss!
"What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation."
Comments?
Personally, Mitts an Establishment figure and would be late to any liberty party. Heck, no Romney has ever defended the country let alone the 2nd.
I saw it.
Didn't make any sense then, still doesn't.
Under Romney’s plan for Massachusetts, the cost of registering firearms would have jumped from $25 to $75. He also called for increases in the cost of firearm identification cards, application fees for a license to carry firearms, and gun dealer fees.
Gun owners said they felt unfairly targeted by Romney’s proposed increases. Democratic lawmakers applauded Romney’s proposal — ultimately raising the cost of gun licenses to $100.
“We certainly shouldn’t be paying anything for our Second Amendment right, because it’s a civil right,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owner’s Action League.
Wallace credited Romney for extending a gun permit from four to six years, but said the higher fees have contributed to a dramatic decline in the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.
Good points.
Incremental evil or instant evil.
The Republican (reluctantly unfortunately) sometimes fight against Liberals in office when they take non conservative and un-American actions.
The GOP took back congress the last time that the Dems got in office.
They are quite reluctant to fight against the SAME things done by RINO's in office.
And they have glowing things to say about McCain, Rudy, Hillary and Obama? I think not. Those are the choices. Only a minority of people make their final decision based on one issue anyway. Thankfully.
Massive write in effort for Fred Thompson.
Agreed: another 1996.
But worse: likely the end of the GOP, if people begin to perceive either of those two as the best we can do.
There's so much of this country where Rooty's and Mutt's ideas are not merely foreign, but alien, as if from another planet altogether.
And thank God that's where I live!
“We certainly shouldn’t be paying anything for our Second Amendment right,Very slick.
because it’s a civil right,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owner’s Action League.Wallace credited Romney for extending a gun permit from four to six years,
but said the higher fees have contributed to a dramatic decline
in the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.
As I have said many times, Romney is slick.
This will all be irrelevant once Heller is decided. The GOAL will then be able to sue to overturn the entire gun licensing system in Massachusetts.
3/4 of the stuff I own is illegal in assachsetts
My "one issue" is the Constitution and Bill of Rights enforcement. Willard fails that test.
That all depends on what the SCOTUS rules. If they rule against the plain wording of the Second Amendment, something which (after Kelo) I would not say is impossible, the feeding frenzy will begin in the Democrat-controlled Congress. The veto pen will be all that stands between our Right and them.
None of the front four inspire confidence in me in such a case, and certainly none of the Democrats.
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.