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.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate still in the running that is 100% reliable on 2nd Amendment.
Go ahead and flame away, but it’s the truth.
-—The NRA will endorse Romney if he is our nominee. -—
That won’t be good enough for the negabots! They won’t be happy until some sap-headed Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office and they can blame everyone else for it.
What a lying turd.
being governor will give him experience to be president :)
he’s been threatening for a couple year to run here.
McCain can’t beat Hillary. Romney can.
I swear, FR in its current state wouldn’t support Governor Reagan in his bid for the White House.
Whenever you see a law enforcement officer talk about being a “sportsman,” that means he will let you keep you single shot deer hunting rifle but would prefer to take away all your pistols and semi-automatic rifles. Just for clarification. Real 2nd Amendment defenders talk about the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the importance of each, and the original intent of each (they’re not about hunting!).
Further, licenses are issued by the Police chief. It is common for legal, honest, no record citizens to have to go to court to have a judge order a chief to issue a license.
Further, you are required to take, even if you just got out of Delta Force a course. So, getting a gun, besides the gun cost can be a $500, and if you need a lawyer, maybe a $1,500 dollar expense, plus you have pissed off your local Police chief, if you go to court.( On the plus side for the stateist, it makes it hard for racial minorities and the great unwashed peasantry, whom elites everywhere have historical kept unarmed.)
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.
This is untrue. The fee for the special FID, which were long required in MA for class 4 weapons, including MACE and pepper spray, were not increased. Witness the page of any police department in MA:
Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2003 in Section 34 reduces the fee for first time FID Cards Restricted to Chemical Sprays (Class D) from $100 to $25. Renewals for this restricted FID Card continue to be free. Of the new $25 fee, 50% stays with the town, and 50% goes to the state. The bill was signed by the Governor on November 26, 2003. The wording change in Massachusetts General Laws will occur in Chapter 140, section 129B(9). The $25 fee for all first time FID Cards Restricted to Chemical Sprays (Class D) is now in effect.
I realize we all disagree with an FID fee at all. I realize we all disagree with an 'assault weapons ban.' I realize many of us would like to reduce the local police department staff and use the savings to train and arm every household with an M16-A2. However, that does not justify lying about Mitt Romney raising the fees on women trying to get pepper spray. The FID has always been in effect in MA, Mitt did not create it. Unfortunately he signed a bill that raised the fees but also did a few good things for gun owners, like extending the terms of the FIDs.
Starts out to appear objective, then it turns into what it really is, a hit piece.
I don’t see any of the candidates as being particularly Pro-Second Amendment. Remember, with little provocation, Huckster, wanted the Federal Government to ban public smoking. I don’t think it would take much to panic that Nanny into an unconstitutional gun ban. Rudy, has always been Anti-Second Amendment. He seems to have only recently offered to mollify his position for the fly-over country. McCain seems to be part of the Kennedy wing of the GOP so we are back to Romney as being no worse and possibly better than his counterparts.
I have an idea for the NRA. Since they are being used by political hacks like Romney to show their 2A bonifides. I think the NRA should be paid extra for this service. What do I mean?
Well, I beleive that a lifetime membership for the NRA is $1,000 and I have heard they are even lowering that soon. A yearly membership is $35.
If you are a politician who has never been a member of the NRA previously and attempt to get a membership, they should charge the normal rates + 1,000 %.
If he supports a FID card of any sort I won’t vote for him.......
Not one of the current GOP candidates get a pass from me .
Real trouble for real conservatives.
"I strongly support the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.
I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. As a member of the National Rifle Association, I do not believe that we need any more federal gun control laws. I also recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business being on the streets. "
"Assault Weapon is a term invented by the press. The military merely calls them "Small Arms". In the Framer's intent, that means "arms".
One either supports the Second Ammendment or one doesn't. You seem to have given way to the liberals' view of "arms" being something one hunts with. It just isn't so.
Given his record and those whom he has advising him on the issue, he will likely be the most 'plugged in' president on the 2nd amendment ever elected.
Besides, if he ever did articulate that he understsood the 2nd amendment as "The violent, killing opposition to government", his campaign would be over.
Believe me, I haven’t given over to the any of the media’s opinions about
firearms because unlike you and me, they usually don’t own any. And while it might be fair to designate, say, a modified full-auto M4A3 or an after-market AK47 as “assault weapons” I am adamantly opposed to any restrictions on their sale to anyone who isn’t a criminal or crazy.
I saw this series of You Tube videos trying to smear Huckabee on his record and you know what, I didn't find them all that bad and in a few cases I could see the logic and might have supported the measures he took, myself.
Remember something folks, the President can only propose and sign legislation. I don't care if Hillary wins if we have a strongly conservative (not RINO) Congress. If we control the Senate no treaty that springs from the UN on guns will get ratified. No anti-gun Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed. If we control the House any attempts to ramp up the powers of the BATFE can be stopped cold. If necessary the BATFE can be shut down and it's front door padlocked because it can be denied operating funds. All bills for spending (for anything) must originate in the House of Representatives.
However the GOP nomination is possibly out of Huckabee's reach, although a win or even a strong showing here in Florida would likely open up the pipeline to funds and talent. Still, I would vote for either Romney or McCain (whom I dislike intensely) IF either had Huck as the VP. This is a man I tend to trust. Enough that when my wife and I voted early yesterday (FL does that and it's awesome) we both cast our ballots for Huckabee.
“The NRA will endorse Romney if he is our nominee.”
They will NEVER endorse that anti gun liberal puke!
Give it up. It ain’t happening!
They know for a fact that they would lose half their membership the day they endorsed him. The NRA isn’t quite as stupid as the Mutt cheerleaders think they are.
I suspect that if Mr. Nugent was put under the same scrutiny being applied to the current field of Republican candidates you would find some areas of disagreement with him. We are electing a leader, not cloning ourselves. Romney has demonstrated leadership qualities, sound judgment and regard for the beliefs of others.
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.