M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
An honest article on the pros and cons of what a ‘President Romney’ would really mean for gun owners.

Romney is not perfect, but what puts him over Obama for me is the following:

Perhaps the only thing that could be said with some degree of certainty is that a ‘President Romney’ would almost certainly nominate more pro-gun judges than would President Obama. And that is no small issue. During his first term alone President Obama has appointed two Supreme Court justices, 35 Court of Appeals judges, and 139 district court judges.

And these judges affect our rights in very real ways and will continue to do so for years to come. As I noted in my article about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama, Heller was only decided by a 5-4 majority. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority.

McDonald v. Chicago was also only decided by a 5-4 majority with the same 5 conservative justices as the majority. Revealingly, President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent characterizing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as “not fundamental”.

And here are some more numbers that should worry gun owners: Justice Scalia is 76 this year. Justice Kennedy is 75. If either of those justices decides to step down or suffers a health problem during the next four years then you can rest assured that any nominee President Obama puts forward will not vote the right way on the next gun rights case, many of which are already working their way up through the courts of appeal.

On the other side of the coin, Justice Ginsburg is 79 this year and Justice Breyer is 73. If either of these justices were to retire from the court, there would be an opportunity to shore up the slim majority that we currently hold in the Supreme Court.

I do believe that a ‘President Romney’ would likely be far better for gun rights than a second-term President Obama for the reasons laid out in my previous article about President Obama. But those reasons are all based on the anti-gun tendencies of President Obama rather than any significant pro-gun tendencies on the part of Governor Romney. I truly dislike rewarding someone for past bad behavior but politics is not an easy game and ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’ is the rule rather than the exception more often than not.

The potential federal judgeship appointments alone should be enough to get gun owners to offer their support to Governor Romney
Here is the article in its entirety ...

http://monachuslex.com/?p=1744

September 2, 2012

What would ‘President Romney’ really mean for gun owners?

“Deadly assault weapons … are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

As the Republican National Convention comes to a close, it is time for me to live up to the promise I made when I wrote about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama. That promise was to give the Republican nominee the same skeptical scrutiny that I gave to President Obama. And just as in that previous article, I am limiting my discussion to gun rights issues only.

I think it is only fair to note that, going into this article, I had some preconceived notions. Surely whoever the GOP nominated would be a sympathetic figure from a gun rights perspective wouldn’t they? After all, isn’t the GOP the gun-rights party? Well as it turns out, maybe not if you are a Massachusetts republican.

In her speech at the RNC, Ann Romney alluded to this, noting that “You may not agree with Mitt’s positions on issues or his politics. Massachusetts is only 13% Republican, so it’s not like that’s a shock.”

But wait … Is it really that bad? What exactly has Mitt Romney said or done that could be construed as anti-gun?

Perhaps most widely reported is the claim that he signed an ‘assault weapons‘ ban while Governor of Massachusetts. In 2004 he signed into law S.2367 which has been reported to be a state version of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban. Now … signing a bill banning a large category of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15 which is one of the most popular rifles selling in America today, would definitely be a direct attack on the Second Amendment. But is that actually what Governor Romney did?

Actually no. Prior to S.2367, Massachusetts already had an ‘assault weapons’ ban in place. S.2367, which cleaned up a number of aspects of Massachusetts’ draconian gun laws, simply updated the existing law to include the definition from the federal ban instead of merely incorporating it since the federal ban was slated to sunset. The NRA goes into detail on their site about why the bill was in fact a victory for Massachusetts gun owners.

However, Governor Romney sullied the signing of this bill by making the comment that I opened the article with in which he parroted the words of the anti-gun forces and demonized so-called ’assault weapons.’ He may have not signed a ban, but his words tell us that he probably would have signed such a ban if it were placed before him.

What else has he done? In 2003, he signed a bill to increase firearms license fees from $25 to $100. To be fair, he proposed that the fee be increased only to $75 and the legislature instead took it to $100. But that still means he proposed a 300% increase in the cost to exercise what he has stated he believes to be a constitutional right. And he ultimately signed a bill making the increase 400%. This may seem trivial to many but it is a huge burden on those living in poverty. For many working families, such a fee effectively denies them the right altogether.

Dan Gross, relatively new president of the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), had glowing words for Governor Romney when his record for gun control is compared to that of President Obama; “In their time in office, I would say with a pretty strong degree of certainty that Romney did more [for gun control].”

Yet amazingly, in 2007 when speaking to the NRA via videotape, he made the astonishing claim that “As governor I worked closely with the NRA and The Gun Owners Action League to advance legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state … We made it easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights.”

“Really? That’s what you think you did? Really?”

Because in the real world, forcing people to pay $100 to exercise a fundamental right is not making it ‘easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights!‘

In the real world, calling popular sporting firearms “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people” is not ‘expanding the rights of gun owners!’

Governor Romney has known for some time that he needed to reform his image with gun owners if he ever wanted to have a shot at the presidency. His efforts in that regard have not inspired confidence.

He joined the NRA as a life member in the summer of 2006, stating that “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement … [and I] joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.” That sounded a little too mercenary for most NRA members who join not for personal benefit but rather because they want to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

And the stumbles continued. In 2007, in an interview with The Glenn and Helen Show, he claimed “I have a gun of my own” in response to a gun owner’s question only to have to admit days later that this was not in fact true.

In late 2007, in an interview with Tim Russert, he reiterated that were he president, he would sign a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban if it made it to his desk although he quite seriously assaulted the english language in doing so.

“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.”
More recently, in an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow on July 23rd, 2012, he was asked about S.2367. Rather than clarifying the issue, he choose to give a political answer which only alarmed gun owners further (emphasis added):

“Well, actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill. Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like. The idea of one party jamming through something over the objection of the other tends to divide the nation, not make us a more safe and prosperous place. So if there’s common ground, why I’m always willing to have that kind of a conversation.”
Given his earlier demonization of ‘assault weapons’ and his continued support for a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban, this answer leaves gun owners wondering whether a ‘President Romney’ might not support significant future gun control legislation if it were pushed by a bi-partisan group. It certainly does not inspire the kind of confidence one would like in a presidential candidate that is asking us for money and grassroots effort on his behalf.

While the NRA has not officially endorsed Governor Romney, he has received the official endorsement of outspoken rocker Ted Nugent but not before Romney reportedly pledged over the phone that “there would be no new gun laws or restrictions on Second Amendment rights in his administration.” I must say that a phone pledge is not the kind of reassurance I would like before opening my checkbook and hitting the streets for a candidate.

Perhaps the only thing that could be said with some degree of certainty is that a ‘President Romney’ would almost certainly nominate more pro-gun judges than would President Obama. And that is no small issue. During his first term alone President Obama has appointed two Supreme Court justices, 35 Court of Appeals judges, and 139 district court judges.

And these judges affect our rights in very real ways and will continue to do so for years to come. As I noted in my article about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama, Heller was only decided by a 5-4 majority. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority.

McDonald v. Chicago was also only decided by a 5-4 majority with the same 5 conservative justices as the majority. Revealingly, President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent characterizing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as “not fundamental”.

And here are some more numbers that should worry gun owners: Justice Scalia is 76 this year. Justice Kennedy is 75. If either of those justices decides to step down or suffers a health problem during the next four years then you can rest assured that any nominee President Obama puts forward will not vote the right way on the next gun rights case, many of which are already working their way up through the courts of appeal.

On the other side of the coin, Justice Ginsburg is 79 this year and Justice Breyer is 73. If either of these justices were to retire from the court, there would be an opportunity to shore up the slim majority that we currently hold in the Supreme Court.

I do believe that a ‘President Romney’ would likely be far better for gun rights than a second-term President Obama for the reasons laid out in my previous article about President Obama. But those reasons are all based on the anti-gun tendencies of President Obama rather than any significant pro-gun tendencies on the part of Governor Romney. I truly dislike rewarding someone for past bad behavior but politics is not an easy game and ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’ is the rule rather than the exception more often than not.

The potential federal judgeship appointments alone should be enough to get gun owners to offer their support to Governor Romney but I don’t think it is enough to truly energize them. After all, we are talking about a man who has the support of both Ted Nugent and Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Romney is a flip flopper so it's possible he can be pushed to the pro 2nd Amendment corner, no such chance with Obummer and the Douche-o-crat, they're hard line anti-gunners. The lesser of 2 evils, isn't that the way it's always been? Democrats=Communist. Republicans=Communist Lite. Gun control and the police state, eventually we'll get there, one party will get us there quicker, that's all. www.schiffradio.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
Devils advocate again

Has either of them ever actually signed gun control legislation?
Romney, had, while Gov of Mass., signed a permanent "assault weapons ban in 2004.
Obama let the Federal assault weapons ban expire.

People who favor gun-ownership rights tend to vote Republican, and they dislike Obama’s position so much that they will cast their ballots for any alternative. Gun-owner advocates are doing Romney’s work for him. I've got no dog in this fight. Just a couple of thought provoking facts. Personally, I don't trust any politician in today's climate. I'm for kicking them all out and starting over. According to the Declaration of Independence,It's our right to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Romney, had, while Gov of Mass., signed a permanent "assault weapons ban in 2004.
Obama let the Federal assault weapons ban expire.

People who favor gun-ownership rights tend to vote Republican, and they dislike Obama’s position so much that they will cast their ballots for any alternative. Gun-owner advocates are doing Romney’s work for him. I've got no dog in this fight. Just a couple of thought provoking facts. Personally, I don't trust any politician in today's climate. I'm for kicking them all out and starting over. According to the Declaration of Independence,It's our right to do so.
I am with you, the system is so flawed on so many levels I do not see how we can continue to try and fix it. I think it is reset button time, it is our God given right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
Im a mass resident. In 2012 i still can't have a bayonet lug, or an ebr with a flash hider. Why? because apparently flash hiders kill people and the operator behind the trigger was just having an excusable bad day.

I can't have 11 rounds in any magazine i own, unless maybe i drop a handful of cartridges in between the pages of gardening magazine. The only way i can have 20 round mags for my rifle is if i pay triple price for a product 40 years old.

I can't have collapsable stocks, even if its the only feature of my "sport ar15."

Handgun licenses are at complete descretion of the police chief. If he fights with his wife that day and decides screw the world today, im not issuing any handgun permits... he's perfectly legal to do so. Yes, if this happens to you, appeal to the state police... Firearms id cards for rifles are shall issue, but you need a pistol permit to own a shotgun that holds more then five shot shells; or a rifle which can ACCEPT high capacity magazines. so your best defense is an m1.

Then theres the attorney general's approved roster... I can buy a smith and wesson 1911, but not a colt, kimber, les baer, or practically any other. Any handgun sale is required to have a TEN pound trigger for safety. Do you know whats not safe? people shooting handgunds with that much trigger pull! accuracy at 10 yards is minute of ocean especially for beginners.

Pepper spray/defensive sprays are illegal without a firearms permit. Same charge criminally for criminal possesion of an illegal handgun...

And then theres the fine i get for not being able to afford health care, because im a part time police officer and student. 500 dollars, every year, because i can't afford health care.

Granted he's not or current governor; but he should have done A LOT more for us. He is praised as given us better gun rights. but by my count he's only compromised, which would be fine except that ten round magazines; he needed to sit longer at that negotiation table.

I doubt he's worse then obama, but he's not going to be what all of you red states think he's going to be; based on his history. Ill guess that he'll compromise, but not evenly for our cause.

Support your local police, theyre the ones who serve and protect you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Obama let the Federal assault weapons ban expire.
I believe the Federal AWB expired on W's watch, much to his credit. Anyway, I distrust all politicians, regardless of party. That said, I think I would be far more likely to approve of Romney's Supreme Court nominations than I would Obama's. Obama gave us Sotomeyer and Kagen--we are going to have to put up with those two for years and years.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Romney, had, while Gov of Mass., signed a permanent "assault weapons ban in 2004.
Obama let the Federal assault weapons ban expire.

People who favor gun-ownership rights tend to vote Republican, and they dislike Obama’s position so much that they will cast their ballots for any alternative. Gun-owner advocates are doing Romney’s work for him. I've got no dog in this fight. Just a couple of thought provoking facts. Personally, I don't trust any politician in today's climate. I'm for kicking them all out and starting over. According to the Declaration of Independence,It's our right to do so.
I am with you, the system is so flawed on so many levels I do not see how we can continue to try and fix it. I think it is reset button time, it is our God given right.

Yall are DAMN RIGHT it is!

:ARM40:
 

·
In the gilded halls of Valhala
Joined
·
13,515 Posts
Im just going to keep repeating myself:

I do not believe guns will have anything to do with politics this election.

stop worrying about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Im just going to keep repeating myself:

I do not believe guns will have anything to do with politics this election.

stop worrying about it.
They aren't worried about the election. It's the 4 years after it. And it's normally when people aren't paying attention to it that they like to backdoor us with more gun regulations, a la "Hughes amendment" and the assault weapons ban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
  • Like
Reactions: TheTinMan

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
^ Halarious! USNA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Romney, had, while Gov of Mass., signed a permanent "assault weapons ban in 2004.
According to the NRA:

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/14069/presidents-column-29/

When Gov. Romney signed a 2004 bill titled “An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons,” his critics erroneously cited this legislation as an assault weapons ban. As GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) notes, with Massachusetts’ politics the titles of legislation do not always reflect the content, meaning this proposal was actually a pro-Second Amendment bill that began the process of reforming the state’s gun laws. Wallace points out that its passage represented a victory rather than a defeat for the state’s gun owners, “It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong in claiming the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong.”

Among other reforms, the bill reinstated a 90-day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their state-mandated firearm licenses at a time when government agencies were falling behind in extending license renewals and it extended the term of licenses from four to six years. It also established a Firearm License Review Board that could review cases in which a misdemeanor conviction resulted in a prohibition on the ownership of a handgun for life, and long guns for a minimum of five years. This board was empowered to review cases and restore licenses where warranted. The full story of this bill and others can be found posted on the GOAL website and is worth a close look by anyone who has questions about the Romney record on guns (www.goal.org) .
And as far as ....

Obama let the Federal assault weapons ban expire.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. George W. Bush was president from January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVman

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
ah heck, terrible "Ted" tried to convert b.o. to the joys of the
hunt and firearms love
but his trophy tag bag looks like Mitt's pup ... hmmmmm
food for thought?


 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top