Mitt Romney And The Second Amendment

lonestartimes ^ | 2/25/2008

[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.

[El Gato]

Of course, a little defense (Miller was dead),

Actually when arguments were presented, well argument by the Government, he was alive. He was killed, with a .38, a few weeks before the decision was announced. But even if he had been dead, there was his former co-defendent, Frank Layton, who should have been represented at the Supreme Court. He or they would have been "respondents", not defendents, just as "Heller" is in the current case. The government (US or DC) being the one who asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court in each case

Read all about "Miller" at this collection of court and other documents

But here is the part that address's Miller's death and Layton's "disposition"

The Southwest American reported on April 6, 1939, that Miller's body had been found in the "nearly dry" bed of Little Spencer creek, nine miles southwest of Chelesa, Oklahoma. He had been shot four times with a .38. Miller's ".45 calibre pistol," from which he had fired three shots in his defense, was found near his body. He was forty years old.

The indictment had been quashed by the district court judge on JANUARY 3, 1939. The government petitioned for appeal directly to the Supreme Court January 30, 1939. The government's brief was filed in March of 1939, Oral argument was presented March 30, 1939. The decision was released May 15, 1939.

One of the documents in that collection is the government's brief in the case, it contains many of the same arguments presented by DC and by the US solicitor general in their Heller briefs, most of which the Court ignored.

Little was reported regarding Frank Layton. He pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun after the Supreme Court decision and was placed on five year's probation by Judge Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940.

[N3WBI3]

Try buying a house for less than $800K in the SF Bay Area,

Single Family Property, Area: Crocker Amazon, County: San Francisco, Three story, Fireplace(s), Dining room, Hardwood floors

$700,000
5 Bed 3 Bath 1,999 Sq. Ft Sq Ft

30 seconds on google..

There were one thousand others at or below 700K this was just first on the list.

Take your socialist class envy somewhere that it fits in; here ain’t it.

Were it not for the fact you seem to be completely clueless in a wide variety of areas such demographics, real estate, and even my political beliefs that might have hurt..

[editor-surveyor]

Move into one of your Google palaces.

[El Gato]

No Democrat would overtly attack guns today and expect to survive an election in the South and West

The important word is "overtly". They'll just wait until after the election, and then "just do it". Probably in the dark of night, by "unanimous consent" and/or voice votes. That voice vote (of questionable authenticity) is how we got the machine gun ban amendment to the otherwise laudatory Firearm Owners Protection Act. Unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate is how we got the Brady computerized registration scheme.(unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate).

[El Gato]

Conservatives have come to a sad crossroads where we're all having to choose between the lesser of evils.

We've had to do that quite often. But generally not in the Primary.

[El Gato]

Not by the Democrats it isn't

Actually it was, at least by some Democrats of the Bad Olde Days.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.

Senator Humphrey was a liberals liberal, Senate Democratic whip from 1961 to 1964, Vice President from 1965 to 1969, Democrat nominee for President 1968. (Lost by only 1% of the popular vote).

[El Gato]

And blame all the idiots who didn’t vote for Fred Thompson.

What about the far larger number of us who never got a chance to cast a vote for either Fred or Duncan?

[N3WBI3]

Why so hard on google its a multi million dollar company for a reason... youre not anti-capitalist are you? Would century 21 be any better

Face it you are *clueless* which, in and of itself, not all that bad but your instance that amazingly stupid numbers are accurate because 'you say so' and with out any evidance (not even as good as google says something about your blind loyalty to Romney..

[editor-surveyor]

Hard on Google?

No, hard on socialist whinners like you. I want you to move into that box by the 280 freeway that you posted.

[Vaquero]

I support the 2nd Amendment. I’m sorry but I believe lobbying organizations (including the NRA) are in the primary business of making money for them, the issue they “support” comes second to that.

Wrong. ‘I AM THE NRA’ as is millions of other of us across the country. It is a very important lobbying organization and its members vote for the directors each year. Right now it is spending a fortune to help pay for the lawyers arguing in front of the Supremes that will try to make sure that the people of DC are able to own firearms. you have been badly misled by the left if you think it is some sort of money making scheme.

I buy from my local gun stores and not big chain merchants.

How smug...So you are anti capitalist. I love Walmart. I buy my ammo there at deep discount. I generally dont buy firearms there but I have and if they have what I want, I will buy more there.

[N3WBI3]

No, hard on socialist whinners like you.

Im sorry other than stating the obvious and statistically provable fact that 200K is *well out of the middle class* what have I said that socialist? Please go back and *quote it*..

Im calling your man on the carpet for what will killhim in the general that fact he is so out of touch with the middle class that he considers someone in the 95th+ percentile of household income 'middle class'... Does he consider someone in the 5th percetile middle class.

I posted that and got people screaming about how the cost of living in MA was high enough to make 200k middle class (which I debunked), that you cant buy a house in Boston unless you make 200K (which I debunked) and that you cant get a house in San Fran for under 800K (which I debunked).

It seems you finally understand you're clueless because you're no longer saying anything of substance just trying to apply motives to me that, once again, you have no basis for.

BTW I found my home on craigslist and it has served me very well. I make 90K a year and support a family of four own a home (in a higher tier market) but according to Mitt Im poor. So when the winds change and willard decided to re-embrace his long held liberal tendencies we know who hell go after..

[editor-surveyor]

Who knows what you consider a ‘clue’ but rest assured, nobody in their right mind would want one.

[GingisK]

...are called "assault rifles"

I was an officer in the Army in the 1972 timeframe. Nothing was called an "assault weapon" while I was there. There were "small arms" (select fire or single fire), "anti-tank", "grenade launchers", and "crew served" weapons. I never heard "assault weapon" uttered by a single person in the military.

[cowboyway]

We've had to do that quite often. But generally not in the Primary.

Not only that, but we're choosing based on which one is the least liberal.

It's the end of the world, dude.

[N3WBI3]

From s guy wrong on every factual statement hes made on this thread you’re mighty arrogant... Please see my tag line..

[editor-surveyor]

Are you still alive, or is it the sun keeping your corpse twitching?

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks for the quote.

It would be a good one to use against Democrats.

[fortheDeclaration]

The important word is "overtly". They'll just wait until after the election, and then "just do it". Probably in the dark of night, by "unanimous consent" and/or voice votes. That voice vote (of questionable authenticity) is how we got the machine gun ban amendment to the otherwise laudatory Firearm Owners Protection Act. Unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate is how we got the Brady computerized registration scheme.(unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate).

That is alot tougher to do today with the internet.

The elites were shocked at the reaction their amnesity bill, never dreaming it would get derailed.

The point is that Democrats recognize that gun control and abortion does not play well in certain areas of the nation and have to run candidates that are against both in those areas.

[Jim Robinson]

Not his fault. The liberals made him do it.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think you just hit the nail on the head there, forthDeclaration. Perhaps without really knowing it too. Faith, and Trust are not gifts handed out cavalierly. They must be EARNED. Our top tier candidates have yet to earn that. Mitt, especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Words ring hollow when thrown out in pre election canned responses. I suggest again, that Mitt get himself educated on the 2nd Amendment from OUR perspective, then perhaps issue a white paper outlining his pledges to us. He needs to earn our trust. We will not give it freely. Nor will we give it to any of the other candidates. I believe that Mitt may be on the cusp of a surge. If he truly wants the nomination, he needs to earn the "gun lobby". The sale has not been inked yet.

I have no problem asking for a no gun control pledge, just like the candidates sign a no new tax pledge.

I wonder what the Mitt supporters on the threads think of this?