Romney and the Mass AWB..

[clublights]

I'm assuming that many of you like me.. have been ...wary... of Mr.Romney due to the Mass AWB during his tenure as Governor of that state....

Here are the facts from a Pro gun group in that state.


http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

Posted in 2007 so I feel it is even more true then something that would have recently come out.

Looks like Mitt is not as anti gun as you may think.

I know I feel better about voting for him now.

[BPTactical]

Well, we know for sure he is not as anti as BHO.
The man has repeatedly stated the laws on the books need to be enforced and he is not in favor of any new laws..

[Bailey Guns]

Thanks for posting this. There is a lot of misinformation out there about Romney and the MA AWB.

Overcoming people's misconceptions is a hard thing to do. For example, Ronald Reagan was probably one of the most anti-gun presidents in our history...but he really didn't push that agenda on a national level like he did as governor of CA.

I don't think Romney will, either.

[loveski]

Gun politics is bad politics for any party. Even though the libs are very anti gun they've laid off the last decade because they lost a lot of male votes for being anti gun in the 90's.. Many democrats have said that they believe Gore lost the 2000 election because of gun politics. He came out in '99 after the columbine tragedy and tried to pass more gun legislation. They believe this lost him key votes in rural areas. Why do you think the AWB lapsed in 2004 without a fight? It's bad politics. Obama and Mitt won't touch it before the election. However, there is no way I'm going to feel safe about gun laws if BO gets a second term. He's got to go.

[Sharpienads]

Repost. http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=66309&highlight=romney+guns

But that's ok, maybe after this one we can get some of the guys on this site to quit being dishonest about Romney's record on guns.

[funkfool]

For those who want to read the relevant part of the article:


http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html


Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw04/sl040150.htm)

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 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw98/sl980180.htm)). 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) (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-130b.htm). 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 (http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC922.html) 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 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131m.htm)). 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.



OMG - He CHANGED THE SIZE?!?!?!?! ANTI!

[DD977GM2]

Thanks for posting this. There is a lot of misinformation out there about Romney and the MA AWB.

Overcoming people's misconceptions is a hard thing to do. For example, Ronald Reagan was probably one of the most anti-gun presidents in our history...but he really didn't push that agenda on a national level like he did as governor of CA.

I don't think Romney will, either.


I hope you are right. Im a bit concerned that Im stocking up even more so now then I initially was before.

Im behind the 8 ball since I have had to sell a bunch off to pay bills [Bang][Bang][Bang]

[clublights]

Repost. http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=66309&highlight=romney+guns

But that's ok, maybe after this one we can get some of the guys on this site to quit being dishonest about Romney's record on guns.

opps!!!!

I normally read just about ecery thread on this site in the GD .. but that day I worked something like 22 hours...it was a long one LOL so I missed your original post my bad please forgive.

[Wiggity]

Well if he is going to do anything, it won't be during his first term. Political suicide.

[Sharpienads]

No worries, buddy. Like I said, it probably needs to be put out again.

I'm not in some fantasy world where I think Romney is gonna go out of his way to push for repeal of existing gun regulation, but I do not believe he is going to push for more regulation, either. State and federal are two different ball games. Romney may have done what he thought was best for his state, but that doesn't mean he thinks the same things are good for the entire nation.

A couple things I was thinking about in relation to this subject:

If Romney didn't sign the bill, he would fall into the "tyrannical" category. From the way I understand it, this bill had popular support from both sides.

People who don't care much for Romney claim he flip-flops and says things to only score political points, or says things for political expediency. Does this apply to the things he said that were at best 2A neutral, or even anti 2A when he was running for/was governor? He ran for governor of a very blue state. Was he trying to score political points from the other side when he said he didn't want "assault weapons" on the streets of MA? Or do we (myself included) arbitrarily pick and choose what we believe is truth and what is political speak based off of our own ideals? We can't have it both ways without facts to prove it.

[sniper7]

Glad you reposted this.

I don't think it will change the minds of anyone, hopefully it will. It seems that the people who get it, will, and those that don't, wont.

[clublights]

Glad you reposted this.

I don't think it will change the minds of anyone, hopefully it will. It seems that the people who get it, will, and those that don't, wont.

I just took the anti's at face value ( yes a mistake I know.. which is why i did some research) that Romney passed the AWB and was as anti as they come.

After reading from a Pro Gun group basically singing his praises ( they even admit.. they had no chance of enough votes to repel the damn thing), It at least showed me he is not an anti .. He's not a "john wayne" by any mean but I doubt he will push to have our guns jacked...

[Jer]

Thanks for posting this. There is a lot of misinformation out there about Romney and the MA AWB.

Overcoming people's misconceptions is a hard thing to do. For example, Ronald Reagan was probably one of the most anti-gun presidents in our history...but he really didn't push that agenda on a national level like he did as governor of CA.

I don't think Romney will, either.

But you think Barack will? He didn't do jack about it in his first term and as awful as it was something tells me if he wanted to do anything it would have been in his first term as there's no way he could have predicted he would have a chance of winning a 2nd term due to the GOP putting forth such a weak candidate. To me, the whole 'Barry wants your guns' thing is just more fear mongering to drive votes.

[clublights]

But you think Barack will?

He stated him self in the 2nd debate he wishes to reinstate the AWB ban.

[Jer]

He stated him self in the 2nd debate he wishes to reinstate the AWB ban.

Yeah, and if elected Romeny claims he will repeal Obamacare? ORLY? How so? Anyone actually thought about what that would take and how a president could do it? Either one is about as likely as the other if that candidate gets elected. We need to stop with all the BS scare tactics and examine the real issues. The hyperbole from both sides is deafening.

[Bailey Guns]

But you think Barack will? He didn't do jack about it in his first term and as awful as it was something tells me if he wanted to do anything it would have been in his first term as there's no way he could have predicted he would have a chance of winning a 2nd term due to the GOP putting forth such a weak candidate. To me, the whole 'Barry wants your guns' thing is just more fear mongering to drive votes.Use a little common sense, Jer. Here are several reasons it hasn't happened under an Obama 1st term but might in an Obama 2nd term:

1) Obama didn't do it in his first term precisely because he had to worry about re-election and gun control is a losing proposition for democrats. They all want the AWB...they just aren't quite ready to give up their careers for it. Obama will have nothing to lose in his second term. Just like he told Medvedev when he thought the mics weren't listening: "I'll have a little more flexibility."

2) He just said in the 2nd debate he'd sign an AWB bill. If you want to believe something, believe that.

3) Republicans have controlled the house for the last two years. No way a republican house is going to pass an AWB. No way.

4) Romney will have absolutely no reason to bring it up. The republican house isn't interested and neither is his base. Why would he piss off his entire electoral base by bringing up gun control?

But don't take my word for hit...Here it is straight from the horse's mouth:

At the end of a long answer to the question, “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:
“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Frankly, that sounds like Obama wants more than an AWB. Looks like he want's to go after hand guns, too. Romney's response was 180 degrees to that.

It makes no sense whatsoever to believe Romney will try to pass an AWB. If it does, give me a compelling reason. The only democrats you ever hear talking about an AWB or gun control are democrats who are in safe democratic-voting districts like Feinstein, Degette, Schumer, ad nauseum.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, and if elected Romeny claims he will repeal Obamacare? ORLY? How so? Anyone actually thought about what that would take and how a president could do it? Either one is about as likely as the other if that candidate gets elected. We need to stop with all the BS scare tactics and examine the real issues. The hyperbole from both sides is deafening.

He doesn't have to repeal it. And, yes, that would take a lot of bipartisanship between the house and senate and isn't likely.

What he can do are issue waivers through executive order to all 50 states exempting them from the provisions of Obamacare.

On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.That's how he gets rid of Obamacare.

[Bailey Guns]

It really sounds to me like a lot of you are really searching for reasons not to like, or vote for, Romney. Personally, I can find a lot to like about the guy and I think he's the right guy at the right time.

Of course, I have to add the disclaimer: No, he's not the perfect candidate. But this will be the 9th presidential election in which I've voted and I have yet to see the perfect candidate...from any party. Romney is as good as I've seen.

[Jer]

It really sounds to me like a lot of you are really searching for reasons not to like, or vote for, Romney.

Didn't really search so much as have it presented to me by the man himself.

[jhood001]

Frankly, that sounds like Obama wants more than an AWB. Looks like he want's to go after hand guns, too. Romney's response was 180 degrees to that.


I won't argue as to whether Obama wants to ban guns or not, because I think he would if he could. However, I didn't draw the same conclusion you did from his comments about handguns.

He was making the point that assault weapons aren't the problem as plenty of killing is being done with handguns. The underlying causes of the violence are the real problem. The handgun piece was a segway into what he said after -



And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.


Just sayin'.

[Bailey Guns]

You could be right. On the other hand, "Saturday Night Specials" has been a war cry of democrats since I was a kid in the 60s.

[sniper7]

Obama will be more reckless in a 2nd term. He will push through his agenda, even with a republican house. People can be bought, dwindling down your rights little by little is easy to accomplish when you give something up to make you feel like you are getting something.

want national carry?, okay...next awb.

want the budget cut, entitlement program reform etc, sure, lets work a deal and somebody will toss on an AWB amendment.

It can happen with any president, but it will ultimately have to be signed by them and I would rather see Romney with the pen and the choice than Obama.

[cysoto]

Wait... Are we talking about the same Mitt Romney who back in 2004 stated:
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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."

At best, all he's proven with his "new stance" on gun laws is that he is capable of adjusting his personal views to give people what he thinks they want to hear.

Regardless of who gets elected as President this coming November, our Right to Bear Arms hangs from a VERY fine thread.

[clublights]

Wait... Are we talking about the same Mitt Romney who back in 2004 stated:
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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."

At best, all he's proven with his "new stance" on gun laws is that he is capable of adjusting his personal views to give people what he thinks they want to hear.

Regardless of who gets elected as President this coming November, our Right to Bear Arms hangs from a VERY fine thread.

Please show a source for your quote.


What I posted at the start was from a PRO Gun group in Mass.

[cysoto]

Please show a source for your quote.


What I posted at the start was from a PRO Gun group in Mass.
Are you honestly claiming that you were unaware of Romney's flip-flop stance on gun control issues?

Here is a few more of his "revised" views: http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/24/romney-guns-nra

Don't be fooled into thinking that your gun rights are going to be safe under Romney. Neither of these candidates is gun-friendly.

[clublights]

Are you honestly claiming that you were unaware of Romney's flip-flop stance on gun control issues?

Here is a few more of his "revised" views: http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/24/romney-guns-nra

Don't be fooled into thinking that your gun rights are going to be safe under Romney. Neither of these candidates is gun-friendly.

While romeny may be a "flip flop"

your cited article is already selling lies.


As governor of Massachusetts, he signed the first permanent state ban on assault weapons. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said at the bill-signing ceremony in 2004… “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.”


My cited paper by GOAL ( Gun Owners Action League) already shows this( the bolded part) as not remotely correct the Mass AWB was started and already perm. in 1998. 5 years before Romney became gov.


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.

[cysoto]

Your search-fu is weak grasshopper...

__________________________________________________

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Department
State House Boston, MA 02133
(617) 725-4000

Mitt Romney, Governor
Kerry Healey, Lieutenant Governor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, July 1, 2004

ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony 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.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

“We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”. . . . . . . . . . .“Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”
__________________________________________________

Back in 2004, GOAL, - the same organization who is now singing the virtues of Mr. Romney - asked its member to contact Gov. Romney and "express their outrage with their betrayal of gun owners in Massachusetts." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/18/cnn-parrots-national-rifle-association-falsehoo/190740


The legislation in question, signed by Romney in July 2004, actually enraged "the pro-gun folks." In a press release titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," the then-Massachusetts governor described the weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." According to Massachusetts' leading gun advocacy group, Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), Romney told reporters at the signing ceremony that his position on assault weapons was the same as Democratic gun violence prevention stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

GOAL called upon its members to "contact Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and express their outrage with their betrayal of gun owners in Massachusetts."

[clublights]

Your search-fu is weak grasshopper...

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

Back in 2004, GOAL, - the same organization who is now singing the virtues of Mr. Romney - asked its member to contact Gov. Romney and "express their outrage with their betrayal of gun owners in Massachusetts." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/18/cnn-parrots-national-rifle-association-falsehoo/190740

So why in 2007 ( which is what my paper is dated) would GOAL change it's mind? and on THIER Site?

[cysoto]

So why in 2007 ( which is what my paper is dated) would GOAL change it's mind?

Though I cannot be certain of their reasons, I will venture to say that they did so because they would rather compromise their integrity by backing up ANY Republican candidate instead of allowing its Liberal counterpart to come out on top. Then again, this is only speculation on my part!

[Jer]

Though I cannot be certain of their reasons, I will venture to say that they did so because they would rather compromise their integrity by backing up ANY Republican candidate instead of allowing its Liberal counterpart to come out on top. Then again, this is only speculation on my part!

Whaa?!?! That almost NEVER happens! :eek:


















[LOL]