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.
Alan Keyes.
If the 2nd Amendment is your top issue, then your top priority must be to make sure that GOP wins the white house, because ALL of the Dems will work hard to restrict gun ownership through Congress and judicial appointments.
FT was the most solid; the rest all have flawed records on this issue - Mitt as detailed above, Huck with a general record of liberalism, Rudy as Mayor, and McCain as a maverick who often takes a populist position. Of the four, I would trust McCain the most on this issue, but I also trust that Mitt and Rudy have seen the light, particularly in a post-9/11 and post-Katrina world.
Reagan signed the Mulford Act, supported both the Brady Bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Yet, he is revered, appropriately, by gun owners around the country.
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.
That statement is as strong a statement of a pro-gun position as ANY candidate.
Big deal.
I'll be damned if that dog'll hunt.
That means I don't have to buy a $100 FID card to be able to buy a $15 can of mace, but I do to buy a $5 box of .22LR?
mark
So Southern liberals are fine with you?
You make some very valid points. I do disagree with Ron Paul on many national security issues, but on every other issue he's the only person left in the race that even resembles a true limited government, states rights, and pro individual liberty conservative.
“So Southern liberals are fine with you?”
No, but a pro gun Zell Miller is better than an anti gun NE liberal puke!
That is all that is left in the race is liberals. Huckabilly and McCrazy are less liberal than the NE liberal puke twins!
It appears he has something a lot more personal than that in mind:
And based on your criteria, Reagan and Bush wouldn’t have gotten your votes either -— or maybe you have a special rule just for Romney..... In any event, we won’t be looking for you at the inauguration!
No, but a pro gun Zell Miller is better than an anti gun NE liberal puke! That is all that is left in the race is liberals. Huckabilly and McCrazy are less liberal than the NE liberal puke twins!
No they are not. But it appears you like those Southern liberal "pukes" better.
BTW, there is absolutely no excuse in the world for a Southern liberal from a red state. Their electorate is more conservative yet they act like liberals.
How pathetic.
And Mitt Romney will be a fine president as well, and I doubt he'll be signing any such bill.
After swapping posts with CharlesWayneCT on some other threads, I followed his advice and did some research.
I doubt you’ll find anyone who thinks Mitt has done a good job explaining his 2nd amendment stand.
As recently as a debate from May 2007, Mitt stated that he supported an ‘assault weapons ban.’ However, his current position is that he doesn’t support any new restrictions on semi-autos or other new anti-gun legislation.
I did contact the Romney campaign through their website and specifically asked if Romney would sign or veto HR 1022 (the new AWB) if it came to his desk as President. The response was quick and was essentially a copy of the 2nd amendment position from his website. The direct question about HR 1022 wasn’t answered. I can post the e-mail from the campaign if folks want to see it, but you can read the same thing at the website.
It would have been much better if Huckabee had asked a more direct question in the debate. Something like whether he would veto HR1022 or asking him to explain what caused him to change his position on an AWB over the past year. But, that didn’t happen.
I’m not comfortable with Romney on the 2nd, but cast my Virginia absentee ballot for him earlier this week because I think he’s the best candidate we’ve got left.
“I’ve given up voting for someone I like. I detest all those who are left. So I’m going with who can beat Hillary.
John McCain.
We are not going to get a conservative President this year. Then again, we don’t have one now.”
I believe McCain is one whom Hillary CAN BEAT! Why do you think the main stream meedia is pushing McCain and earlier Huckabee? Because they KNOW either McCain or Huckabee would be the easiest for Hillary to beat. They have tons of bad press to bring out on McCain should he win the nomination. My prayer now it that McCain is stopped here in Florida so I am voting for Romney.
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.