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.
Why did he do that?
Why did he do that?
Yes, this issue is just that important.
(BARF) How superior!
Why not? I got my first junior membership when I was five and saved up for a life membership while still in high school. Then I became a certified instructor for them about 20 years ago. Yeah, sometimes they do things that make me mad. I knew the UN was after our guns years before they acknowledged this sad fact. But you know, without them we'd have lost all our rights and our guns in the 1960's or the 70's or the 80's....
Sure there are lots of gun rights groups but the best known with the most clout and the biggest and baddest organization is still the NRA! Right after the 2000 election, when I heard Bill Clinton say on cnn that the NRA was the reason they'd lost the Congress in '94 and the reason Gore lost in 2000, I knew working and saving for that life membership all those years ago had been a good thing.
Not only am I a life member and an instructor I try and give till it hurts to either the ILA or the PVF and those aren't tax deductible! Membership is like voting: It's the very least you can do to protect the 2nd Amendment. But you should go much further. Give $$$. Better yet, recruit new members. Because anybody who sits on the sidelines in this fight is gettin' the blame if we lose.
First, no bills should reach his desk.
Second, if he wanted to run for a second term, he wouldn't sign any.
Third, his statement that he believed the 2nd Amendment was an individual right was about as strong as one can make.
Very smug though.
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.
For anybody who missed this from earlier 2nd A. related posts, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. now protects the personal right to keep and bear arms from the states as well as the feds as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights. See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nIn USSC cases, and court cases in general, that test the 2nd A., given that the USSC doesn't agree with 14th A. constitutional lawmakers about the scope and personal protection aspect of the 2nd A., consider that what such cases are actually testing is how corrupt the USSC is.
Doom and gloom!
Look at who the Democrats are running against us-again, the Clintons.
They cannot be allowed to get in the White House.
For so many on these thread always talking about the troops, what will that do their morale to have the Clintons back in office?
If you can't vote because you 'love' the candidate, vote for the benefit of the troops!
Any GOP candidate is better then any Democrat when it comes to supporting our troops.
If they do that it shows that they can't read clear English!
Slow down Chuck, if you spin that sh!t any faster you'll need a grease fitting...
Whew! OK, I'll put my safty back on. ;-D
Grease fitting? ROTFLMAO... ;-)
I don't see that at all.
I saw that they tried to get a amnesty bill passed and that was stopped.
We can make anti-gun congressmen pay at the polls and reject the NRA's excuses for their compromises.
No sitting GOP president is going to sign anti-gun legislation if he wants a second term.
As the campaign continues and moves South, I am sure the issue will be more clarified and he will be asked to make such a commitment.
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.