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.
So instead of standing for his beliefs, he politicized and compromised away the very rights he swore to uphold?
How will it be any different at the fed level ???