Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:46 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:46 PM I have always been under the impression that Mitt Romney signed an "assault" weapons ban into law when he was governor. According to the Massechusetts Gun Owner's Action League (GOAL) that is not correct. Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Proclamations: During his administration, Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day”. The proclamation was issued on this date to coincide with GOAL’s Annual Banquet.* It should be noted for readers of this report that are not familiar with Massachusetts politics that the titles of the legislation do not always reflect the intent. For instance the bill entitled “An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons” was actually a pro-Second Amendment bill that began the process of reforming the state’s gun laws. An Act Further Regulating Certain WeaponsThis 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. This was news to me.
oneshot Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:59 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:59 PM http://www.iberkshir...eapons-ban.html Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:02 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:02 PM http://www.iberkshir...eapons-ban.htmlWell, that's what I always thought - and have repeated - but go to GOAL's website. They say the media got it wrong and it was not a gun control bill but an improvement.
Patriots & Tyrants Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:04 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:04 PM Molly you got me all worked up and hopeful with your title only to be let down. I think the word you were looking for is Stance. His "Stand" would imply he is taking a stand against anti gun legislation insted of him having a very dubious record on 2A issues. I was under the impression he signed into law an AWB that mirrored the expired federal ban under threat of having a much harsher bill forced through. In my mind thats an excuse and at best with Romney we have someone indifferent to gun Issues outside of Election years.
SFC Stu Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:05 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:05 PM In a liberal state, Romney did not have the support to be pro-gun.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:07 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:07 PM Molly you got me all worked up and hopeful with your title only to be let down. I think the word you were looking for is Stance. His "Stand" would imply he is taking a stand against anti gun legislation insted of him having a very dubious record on 2A issues. I was under the impression he signed into law an AWB that mirrored the expired federal ban under threat of having a much harsher bill forced through. In my mind thats an excuse and at best with Romney we have someone indifferent to gun Issues outside of Election years. Thank you, I have changed the title to better reflect the topic.
colt-45 Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:08 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:08 PM well i was too Molly. this is good news.
oneshot Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:12 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:12 PM Well, in a situations such as the one we're in, I say, go with the one who's not about to become a lame duck if reelected, they're more dangerous that way. And Molly, just trying to support your previously held idea about the Governor. I wanted clarification myself.
colt-45 Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:14 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:14 PM so he did sign the AWB than?
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM I do try to do the necessary research and this really surprised me - I, please forgive me, had just accepted what I had heard in the media. Unless this group turns out to be looney tunes, I think I'll go with their first hand account of what took place - they were there and working with the man.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:17 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:17 PM Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain WeaponsThis 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.
abolt243 Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM OK, so I's confused. What did he sign?? Not that it will make much difference in my vote in November. Hint: it won't be for Obama! Tim Edit: The person that wrote that for GOAL needs to learn the difference between loose and lose.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:24 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:24 PM OK, so I's confused. What did he sign?? Not that it will make much difference in my vote in November. Hint: it won't be for Obama! Tim Looks like he signed a good bill put together by his staff and GOAL which corrected some bad law and inserted the federal AWB exemptions into the state law - along with sunset language?
Talonap Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:39 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:39 PM Where did this quote come from then? Or is it that people are just making stuff up again? "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM Where did this quote come from then? Or is it that people are just making stuff up again? "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Please go read this page - it explains what happened.Gun Owner's Action League
Tompo Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM I'm still confused. According to his own words in 2004, he said this-- “I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assault-weapons-ban/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/48264267/ns/politics/?Obama_Romney_views_toward_gun_rights_have_evolved
oneshot Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:45 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:45 PM Let me put it this way, the quote was his, it's published with many "reputable" publications, he's known to be a big flip flopper, thus, I don't expect him to be our savior, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but he is better than the lame duck candidate who makes no bones about his positions on semi-autos. Just be ready to fend off a world class screwing if he gets elected. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." btw Ron Paul 2012!!! Oops, too late.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:46 PM Author Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:46 PM An article by David Keene, NRA President, in the September "America's First Freedom" is what started me on researching this better. Page 10 if you have a copy.
Tvandermyde Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:39 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:39 PM guys he may not be perfect, and at the time, consider that we were loosing the debate acros the country on the semi-autos. The local state organization made the best out of the situation they had. Now Ryan a devout pro-gun guy has been added tot he ticket. i guy who walked in his house, changed close and then walked out the back 40 through the woods, the same woods he hunts, up a hollow and found a staffer waiting in a car on the road. then went to meet Romney to disscuss being VP. compare that to Joe Biden who brags about writing the 1994 clinton gun ban. to Obama who voted to put a man in jail for using a handgun in self defense in his home defying a local gun ban.
pyre400 Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:45 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:45 PM Romney, taking a stance. /chuckle He's got 2 feet, and they'll always be planted on both sides of any issue. He's simply best... the best the establishment has to offer...
vess1 Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:56 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:56 PM I'm still confused. According to his own words in 2004, he said this-- “I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,†he said on Fox News in 2004.http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assault-weapons-ban/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/48264267/ns/politics/?Obama_Romney_views_toward_gun_rights_have_evolved Just sounds like a meaningless political answer trying to appease both sides to me. BO does it all the time. I was listening to Glenn Beck on xm this morning and they had clips from a goofy morning radio show interview that BO did with an Albequrque station. An interview that supposedly the administration reached out for, not the station. Anyway, they ask BO if he likes the color red or green better. (You know, only the softball non-political type of question allowed on a morning show listened to by the absolute mindless". He said he would have to go with red but green is a "solid color too". Because you wouldnt want to offend the nitwits out there who love the color green. Point is, a solid stance couldnt even be taken on something as mundane as that. Why is Romneys response a surprise? He has to throw a bone to the radicals. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2
Tompo Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:09 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:09 PM Over the years, Romney's been on both sides of every issue. It depends on which audience he's talking to.
pyre400 Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:15 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:15 PM ^ I can think of other politicians who do the same. Like the ones who will close GTMO the first day in office. The fact is, its all you can expect from the establishment. As long as this is acceptable to voters ("oh, he's just being a politician"), than this is all we can expect. At some point, people need to wake up and quit letting media induced fear drive their behavior. ...And the product of selecting a lesser evil is still evil.
oneshot Posted August 20, 2012 at 06:04 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 06:04 PM ^ I can think of other politicians who do the same. Like the ones who will close GTMO the first day in office. The fact is, its all you can expect from the establishment. As long as this is acceptable to voters ("oh, he's just being a politician"), than this is all we can expect. At some point, people need to wake up and quit letting media induced fear drive their behavior. ...And the product of selecting a lesser evil is still evil. My favorite is how the Big O lectured on the campaign trail that we {Americans] can't always have our thermostats set at our ideal temperature and then once he's in office, staffers and media don't wear jackets and have their sleeves rolled up because O likes it hot as a greenhouse in the West Wing.
Tompo Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:17 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:17 PM ^ I can think of other politicians who do the same. Like the ones who will close GTMO the first day in office. The fact is, its all you can expect from the establishment. As long as this is acceptable to voters ("oh, he's just being a politician"), than this is all we can expect. At some point, people need to wake up and quit letting media induced fear drive their behavior. ...And the product of selecting a lesser evil is still evil. Closing GTMO was made nearly impossible. What do you do with the people being held there? But, being on BOTH SIDES of the "assault weapons ban" is two different things.
mauserme Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:41 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:41 PM Yes, two different things as in sometimes wrong, but somtimes right. As opposed to consistently wrong on this issue as confirmed by this August 6, 2012 quote from the president's press secretary: http://tpmdc.talking...weapons-ban.php ...“He (the President) does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” Carney said at his press briefing, ...
pyre400 Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:54 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:54 PM Closing GTMO was made nearly impossible. What do you do with the people being held there? You put them on trial, and punish or release them. You cannot indefinitely detain people based on a hunch...I can give other incidents of duplicity by 'bummer but this is a Romney thread - not that he's any different IMO. I guess, he's not been as active as 'bummer has in the assault on our 2A rights. You dont have to look very hard to see what 'bummer thinks of guns and gun owners. Again, dont take my criticism of 'bummer as a defense for Romney. They are both equally worthless grabastic pieces of lowlife-politicial ... .... .. - IMO
Tompo Posted August 20, 2012 at 09:29 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 09:29 PM Closing GTMO was made nearly impossible. What do you do with the people being held there? You put them on trial, and punish or release them. You cannot indefinitely detain people based on a hunch...I can give other incidents of duplicity by 'bummer but this is a Romney thread - not that he's any different IMO. I guess, he's not been as active as 'bummer has in the assault on our 2A rights. You dont have to look very hard to see what 'bummer thinks of guns and gun owners. Again, dont take my criticism of 'bummer as a defense for Romney. They are both equally worthless grabastic pieces of lowlife-politicial ... .... .. - IMO I agree, normally, you put them on trial. But, in many of these cases, since many of these guys were tortured. Or, they were interrogated with "enhanced" techniques. Which makes a criminal trial nearly impossible. Obama may have said he'd like to renew the AWB, but he's done nothing to make it happen. On the other hand, Romney has three opinions on every issue.
mauserme Posted August 20, 2012 at 09:41 PM Posted August 20, 2012 at 09:41 PM [Obama may have said he'd like to renew the AWB, but he's done nothing to make it happen. On the other hand, Romney has three opinions on every issue. If you read the article you'll see that he feels held back by congress in passing a new gun ban. They are cited as the reason he can not make a ban happen. And if he feels held back, he must have investigated the feasablity of a new ban which is itself an effort toward enacting a ban, even if that effort is not fruitful (yet).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.