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.
Yes, I am absolutely clear on his history, which is why I'm squinting real hard at what he just said. I certainly have my doubts ... but there is no question this positions him better than the others. Given the choice of varying degrees of evil, this one might actually repent.
The law he signed did not ban a single new weapon, and I do not believe it covered a specific gun owned by millions of people — there is no indication of that, and the GOA did not provide specifics about what this gun is that they think is owned by millions but banned in Mass.
Further, the local pro-gun organizations wrote the bill that Romney signed. GOA could well be upset with what they did, but the local groups thought it was a good bill for them, and said so.
The real point is that they already had a gun ban, and contrary to popular opinion it was not going away, as it was not tied to the federal ban. The legislature was going to fix any problems they had with the ban, and was quite willing to ban even MORE weapons.
But Romney, working with gun owners groups, managed to get a legislature hell-bent on banning more weapons to actually pass a bill that REMOVED guns from the ban, and did a lot of other good things for gun owners.
They could have passed a draconian ban on guns, and overridden his veto. But by working with the gun owners and making a few compromises that the gun owners found acceptable, he was able to achieve a great victory for them, IN MASSACHUSSETTS.
Those who complain measure that result against what would happen in their own state, not understanding how impossible it looked to the gun owners to get ANYTHING good out of that legislature.
Carolyn
If the fee is a one-time fee for getting a license, how would raising that fee reduce the number of EXISTING licenses?
Yes, because we shouldn’t respect the man’s wishes. We should force him to serve even when he’s decided not to.
The NRA will endorse Romney if he is our nominee. They rated him higher than McCain, and that was before he worked with them in Massachussetts.
Myth blew this issue. I guess sometimes you are stuck with your record.
If you don’t know how raising the costs of anything reduces the supply, I can’t help you.
Governor Romney has indeed said that he supported the original 1994 Assault Weapons Bill as recently as December 16, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: 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. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms...
(‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 16, 2007, my emphasis added.)
Uhh... You don't live in the South or the West do you?
I posted the full transcript last night. Everything he said about AWB was in the past “I supported”, “I would have supported”, “I would have signed”.
He was on record as supporting it at the time, and in 2002, and he was acknowledging that.
He also said in the portion you left out that he did NOT support bringing that AWB back, or ANY other AWB bill. He said he would not support any new AWB bills.
What, do the licenses go bad after a while, like a refrigerator, and need to be replaced? That’s what I’m asking. It looks like the licensing is a one-time thing. So even if you stopped issuing new licenses altogether, why would the number of EXISTING licenses drop?
It’s actually a question. Maybe I misunderstand what a “one-time license” means.
...and never will as long as we keep nominating and supporting RINO's
I interpret that to mean he will not sign it if it came across his desk. Hope that is the case if he is nominated, elected and the legislation comes along.
Seems like the best we can do on the Republican side is a President who’ll sign most any anti-gun bill that crosses his desk, but won’t actively push for such bills. Any of the Dem candidates will agressively push for more restrictions. Easy, if not a particularly satisfying, choice. I’ll take an NRA B/C over F rating any day.
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.