The truth on Romney's gun control record.

[Arabia]

Here is a link to an article on Gun Owners Action League site about Romney's true gun control record in Massachusetts. It seems a lot of people here and on other sites seem to believe only what the media wrote about his signing a AWB in Massachusetts. When In fact we had a AWB in this state since 1994 that did not expire. Overall his tenure as governor actually had a positive effect for gun owners in this state. He did not sign any gun control bill while in office, and actually supported some pro gun bills. He is the only Governor in recent years to actually support and sign pro gun bills into law. The Republican Governors before him caved into the antis demands, and supported more gun control. When looking at his record you have to take into account the general political atmosphere in Massachusetts, which to say in not pro gun. Actually in recent years things have gotten better for us, but we still have to fight for small gains. We are still behind the eight ball with a solid Democrat legislature, and now a liberal Democrat as governor. Now I am only posting this to set the record straight, not to support him. This is only to clear up some misinformation posted on the internet by people who only read one side of the story.

Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.

To read the rest of the article click on the link.
http://www.goal.org/romneyrecord.htm

 

[baker437]

weapons of unusual lethality

From Meet the Press:

"GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…"


I wonder what he thinks a "weapons of unusual lethality" is?
That sounds pretty open and I could easily see any semiautomatic firearm specialy those “evil” black rifles in “military calibers” qualifying.

Also like to point out he raised gun registration fees (i.e. state gun tax) in Massachusetts.

He may not be the worst candidate on the right to bear arms but he is fore sure not the best. I will pass come primary day and that goes for Rudy also.

 

[ForksLaPush]

In one of the debates he boasted about raising fees, not taxes, and that they had a surplus every year he was governor. I have never seen any follow-up, but what can that possibly mean other than that the fee-paying citzens were being overcharged? Is there some intricacy of MA government that I am missing here?

 

[Arabia]

From the article I linked too which you did obviously did not read. This is a State level pro gun organization not a Romney campaign group. They took him to task on many other issues. I would say they have a pretty fair view on his actual accomplishments for gun rights as governor.

This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

 

[Arabia]

You didn't respond to anything I said, all you did is copy and paste. Have a nice day.

Your post is based all on conjecture which the article disproves.

YES, it's true that the Mass "assault weapons" ban did not expire BUT it's definitions relied on the federal ban which HAD expired. If Romney had not signed the ban that he signed, Mass would have had an unenforcible (in addition to being unconstitutional) ban.

There was no way the AWB could be proved unconstitutional in Mass since the state supreme court in 1974 found that the Mass RKBA applied to the Government, not citizens.
The rest of what you wrote is call conjecture so no reason to even respond to it.

 

[SteelCore]

Arabia: Do you deny that Romney said the following words?

"GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…"

If Romney said the above words, then he is completely anti-Second Amendment, and there is nothing left to debate here.

The Second Amendment was meant to protect precisely those weapons that are dangerous to law enforcement. This country was founded on principles such as "government by consent of the governed" and "liberty or death" -- not "officer safety" or even public safety.

 

[Arabia]

I would not say he anti gun, he plays both sides of the issue.Like many politicians do. He is a pure political beast. Bush did the same thing, and so has McCain, Unfortunately that is the way the politics is today. This is why I don't support him as president. He will say one thing to one group than say the opposite to another.

1 Steelcore! Expect arabia to avoid 99% of those FACTS you just cited. How DARE you use Romney's own words like that

Much like you ignored my facts.

The lengths this "arabia" guy is willing to go to cover for "Mitt" make me wonder if he also supports "assault weapon" bans. His profile says he lives in MA so he's probably so used to an AW ban that he thinks it's "mainstream" and "normal." That is the only reason I can figure why somebody would go to such lengths to polish the image of a two faced politician.

\

You have mistaken my intentions here. Did I not say earlier that this was not about supporting Romney. All I was do was giving out the facts on one issue for people to make up their own minds. Unlike others that like to spin things to their own perspective, I did not endorse nor ridicule him. It is just more information for people. Unlike you I want people to have correct information to base their opinions on. Too bad some people like to bash people who are only trying to relay information. This is not a personal attack against you but you should really read more deeply before making baseless accusations on peoples intentions.
If you actually read what I wrote above you would already know I am not supporting him.

Now I am only posting this to set the record straight, not to support him. This is only to clear up some misinformation posted on the internet by people who only read one side of the story.

Me above.

In ending I did not want to turn this into a flame war on Romney. Moderators, feel free to lock this tread if it gets out of hand.