Romney signed permanent assault weapons ban


wallyb

New member
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.”
 

rahlquist

New member
Yup, I pointed this out to many people who instantly started thumping the war drum over Obama's assault weapon comment during the debate. Dont get me wrong, I dont want Obama in office at all myself. But during the debate Romney did toot his own horn about this bill and stated that it was a good law all around because there were hunting concessions allowing some hunting never before allowed or some rubbish like that.

Here it is from the transcript.
MR. ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it's referred to as a — as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn't previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.

So basically I read that as the hunters sold out the second amendment in his state.
 
Yup, I pointed this out to many people who instantly started thumping the war drum over Obama's assault weapon comment during the debate. Dont get me wrong, I dont want Obama in office at all myself. But during the debate Romney did toot his own horn about this bill and stated that it was a good law all around because there were hunting concessions allowing some hunting never before allowed or some rubbish like that.

Here it is from the transcript.


So basically I read that as the hunters sold out the second amendment in his state.

Unfortunately, lots of hunters do not actively support the Second Amendment. They seem to believe that no one will touch their rifles and shotguns. In other countries, those were the first to be restricted. When I ask hunters to join the NRA, they decline in many cases because they just don't see the whole anti gun picture.
 

kiehtan

New member
Get your facts straight people, in the state of MA, they were already banned, all the law did that he signed was clarify what is and what is not an assault weapon. It took the already in place vague law and rewrote it to use the federal language in place at the time. The law was actually good for gun owners because it helped to prevent more firearms being creeping into the ban by specifically delineating what us and what is not an assault weapon. Go to the gun owners action league website for more info.
 

gunnerbob

PEW Professional
If we let them, meaning the "gubbment" take any of our firearms... we all lose in the end. The start of tyranny is with firearms confiscation, whether by force or legislation. Whether you choose to shoot or own ARs, AKs, or any other "assualt weapon" is irrelevant... allowing anothers rights to be deminished is selfish and only serves to undermine liberty. That day when the federal agents show up to take your bolt-actions and pump shotguns from you, there's not going to be anybody around to help you defend what's yours... b/c they are all unarmed and/or imprisioned.

So many people are ignorant to the true purpose of the 2A, it isn't so you and your huntin' buds can go shoot some ducks... it's so you and your huntin' buds can effectively abolish a tyrannical gov't, should that day come. The only way to do that is to have equal or greater means of weaponry as the gov't, or whatever tyrannical body we're talking about. As I'm sure a lot of you on this forum understand, the 2A secures the rest.

Pass the word...
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Get your facts straight people, in the state of MA, they were already banned, all the law did that he signed was clarify what is and what is not an assault weapon. It took the already in place vague law and rewrote it to use the federal language in place at the time. The law was actually good for gun owners because it helped to prevent more firearms being creeping into the ban by specifically delineating what us and what is not an assault weapon. Go to the gun owners action league website for more info.

Believe me, if GOAL were the only "gun rights" organization there was to support out there, I'd use their logo for target practice when I went to the range. What a bunch of phonies. You've either been duped, or you're not a 2nd Amendment supporter.

Gun bans of any description are never good for gun owners and/or true 2nd Amendment protectors. You should get your facts straight.

So many people are ignorant to the true purpose of the 2A, it isn't so you and your huntin' buds can go shoot some ducks... it's so you and your huntin' buds can effectively abolish a tyrannical gov't, should that day come.

The truly inexplicable reality is that so many don't understand that the prelude to that day coming are all the gun bans and other forms of control.

Pass the word...

Indeed.

Blues
 

PatriotMom

New member
Get your facts straight people, in the state of MA, they were already banned, all the law did that he signed was clarify what is and what is not an assault weapon. It took the already in place vague law and rewrote it to use the federal language in place at the time. The law was actually good for gun owners because it helped to prevent more firearms being creeping into the ban by specifically delineating what us and what is not an assault weapon. Go to the gun owners action league website for more info.

This is a good clarification. If he helped to define assault weapons to not include all semi-autos then he did a good thing restricting what the govt can take away.

It's the difference between adding to the military budget vs. not reducing the budget. In the case of guns, he put up a dam that said "here's the line you can't cross". Don't get me wrong, Ron Paul would still be president if it were my decision, but I'd vote for Romney over Obama any day.
 
Here is the NRA-ILA summary of the law, written just after the MA legislature passed the bill:



Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk

On June 24, 2004 at approximately 11:20 AM , the Senate took the last legislative vote on S.2367 and sent it to Governor Romney`s desk for his consideration. Representing the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth`s worst in the nation gun laws, S.2367 is a breath of fresh air for law abiding gun owners. Governor Romney is expected to sign the bill into law later this week.

While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a "voice" vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.

S.2367 does the following:

Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;

Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;

Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;

Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;

and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.

Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new "Assault Weapons" ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an "Assault Weapon" could be.

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called "assault weapons," but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Myth: The legislature somehow "won over" gun-rights supporters by including reforms.

Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.

Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they "spearheaded" S.2367.

Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.

Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.

Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, the net effect on Massachusetts gun owners is zero. No new gun bans are banned. Keep in mind that the state language in effect before this bill was NEVER set to expire.

With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.

Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.
 
What in the hell is the difference here? Why are people arguing over a mirror image? There is no way you can argue for Romney when it comes to his past positions on gun Control? You just had to accept what the GOP gave you too vote for. The GOP said Romney was the only person that could beat obama. How did you buy that bill of sale? What happen to one year ago when anyone could beat obama? Why didn't we throw the GOP where it deserves to be, in the garbage can? Don't you think enough is enough and start using that blank spot on the ballot and write in who you want as president instead of what they want as president? Really people time too wake the hell up.
 
What in the hell is the difference here? Why are people arguing over a mirror image? There is no way you can argue for Romney when it comes to his past positions on gun Control? You just had to accept what the GOP gave you too vote for. The GOP said Romney was the only person that could beat obama. How did you buy that bill of sale? What happen to one year ago when anyone could beat obama? Why didn't we throw the GOP where it deserves to be, in the garbage can? Don't you think enough is enough and start using that blank spot on the ballot and write in who you want as president instead of what they want as president? Really people time too wake the hell up.

I know you don't really believe a write in candidate could be elected president. Romney was not my first choice, but he is the best of the two.
 

wallyb

New member
FACTS ABOUT THE NRA-ILA POSITION ON MA ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN-

October 3, 2012, NRA Rewrote History To Hide Romney Support For Assault Weapons Ban

NRA News is deliberately misleading its supporters about Mitt Romney's firearms policies while he served as governor of Massachusetts. During the October 2 edition of Cam & Company, host Cam Edwards suggested that any action taken by then-Governor Romney on assault weapons was supported by Massachusetts state gun rights group Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) and further stated that Romney "actually undid some of the damage" of the commonwealth's 1998 assault weapons ban. In fact, legislation signed by Romney in 2004 made the Massachusetts assault weapons ban permanent.

A July 1, 2004 press release issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," leaves little doubt that the former Massachusetts governor was involved in restricting access to assault weapons. Indeed, at the bill's signing ceremony Romney stated that the "sole purpose" of assault weapons is "hunting down and killing people." In response to the new law, GOAL stated that the Romney administration "took a major shot at lawful gun owners and showed their true colors."

This is not the first time the National Rifle Association has tried to whitewash Romney's history on assault weapons. In a September 6 interview, NRA's chief lobbyist Chris Cox asked Romney, "As governor, you signed a major bill reforming Massachusetts' gun registration and licensing laws. Some in the media and elsewhere claim this bill was a reauthorization of the semi-auto ban in Massachusetts. What's your response?" Romney replied that the legislation in question "expanded the rights of Massachusetts gun owners" and said he opposed laws "intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen."

The NRA, whose media arm NRA News may as well be a "Romney for President" advertisement on loop, is waging an "All In" campaign that seeks to remove President Obama from office. It is just hard to see, however, how backing the enactor of "An Act Furthering Regulating Certain Weapons" plays into the narrative that Obama, who has taken no action to restrict firearm ownership during his first term, is the real gun grabber.
 

rahlquist

New member
I know you don't really believe a write in candidate could be elected president. Romney was not my first choice, but he is the best of the two.

Link Removed

Thats a self defeating attitude, if our founding fathers had thought like that.... Well we can take British rule or anarchy...
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Here is the NRA-ILA summary of the law, written just after the MA legislature passed the bill:

Blah blah....

Thanks for proving so unequivocally the folly of trusting the NRA to steadfastly defend our rights.

As soon as you can describe the functional difference between a semi-auto Mac-10 and the weapon you have in your own avatar, then maybe you can try to justify being an apologist for the weapons ban that Mittens signed into law in '04. Otherwise, you're just joining the NRA in being an apologist for any and all gun control laws that they deem "reasonable," whether or not those laws infringe on We, The People's rights.

Their own high-ranking office-holders have been unambiguous about the NRA's support of gun control since its inception. To wit:

America's largest gun control organization

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

They actively fought against bringing Heller to SCOTUS, which means one can't legitimately say the the previous citation is too old to be valid in discussing today's issues. Please don't try to say I don't know what I'm talking about where their non-support for Heller is concerned either. I can document it, and you'll just be embarrassed.

Even back in '68 the wider membership was exposed to the .org's support for gun control, when the following appeared in their flagship publication, The American Rifleman:

In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:

"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."

So mandated interaction with local police, permits and waiting periods from the federal level of government have not only been supported by the NRA, but according to their own publication, the ideas actually came directly from them. What a great "civil rights" organization, huh?

No surprise they supported Mittens "Gun-Ban" Romney. They were just being completely consistent with their verifiable history.

Blues
 
Thanks for proving so unequivocally the folly of trusting the NRA to steadfastly defend our rights.

As soon as you can describe the functional difference between a semi-auto Mac-10 and the weapon you have in your own avatar, then maybe you can try to justify being an apologist for the weapons ban that Mittens signed into law in '04. Otherwise, you're just joining the NRA in being an apologist for any and all gun control laws that they deem "reasonable," whether or not those laws infringe on We, The People's rights.

Their own high-ranking office-holders have been unambiguous about the NRA's support of gun control since its inception. To wit:



They actively fought against bringing Heller to SCOTUS, which means one can't legitimately say the the previous citation is too old to be valid in discussing today's issues. Please don't try to say I don't know what I'm talking about where their non-support for Heller is concerned either. I can document it, and you'll just be embarrassed.

Even back in '68 the wider membership was exposed to the .org's support for gun control, when the following appeared in their flagship publication, The American Rifleman:



So mandated interaction with local police, permits and waiting periods from the federal level of government have not only been supported by the NRA, but according to their own publication, the ideas actually came directly from them. What a great "civil rights" organization, huh?

No surprise they supported Mittens "Gun-Ban" Romney. They were just being completely consistent with their verifiable history.

Blues

So vote for Obama and don't belong to the NRA. Won't bother me, it is your choice. Just do nothing and coast along, hoping for change. Sorry, I did not mean to plagiarize Obama.
 

JimPage

New member
Link Removed

Thats a self defeating attitude, if our founding fathers had thought like that.... Well we can take British rule or anarchy...

You mean that rather than vote for Romney who did say in the debate this week that he doesn't intend to tinker with the Second Amendment you would out of principle write in someone who can't win and assure one more vote for the one who stated he does want to tinker with the 2A? That's another stroke of pure genius!
 

rahlquist

New member
You mean that rather than vote for Romney who did say in the debate this week that he doesn't intend to tinker with the Second Amendment you would out of principle write in someone who can't win and assure one more vote for the one who stated he does want to tinker with the 2A? That's another stroke of pure genius!

MR. ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it’s referred to as a — as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn’t previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.

That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s — that’s gridlocked. We haven’t had — we haven’t — we haven’t — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.

Looks to me that he wants more gun legislation. That is a quote, not taken out of order, or context, he wants more compromises that's just wonderful right?

The problem is this country is populated with people who don't think for themselves anymore they just pick the lesser of two evils and vote for it, they don't learn, educate or try to change a damn thing. The country is full of sheep that say oh nobody but the two major parties can win. And until the people stand up and quit being a bunch of mealy mouth wussies thats all that will win. Youd think that with the crap thats happened since 2001 that the american people would be galvanized into action but no, they still stay home from voting in droves. It sucks.

Gona quote some Five Finger Death Punch here;

It's hard not to be a menace to society
When half the population is happy on their knees

It's sad.
 
F

Flanmedic51

Guest
Link Removed

Thats a self defeating attitude, if our founding fathers had thought like that.... Well we can take British rule or anarchy...

You mean that rather than vote for Romney who did say in the debate this week that he doesn't intend to tinker with the Second Amendment you would out of principle write in someone who can't win and assure one more vote for the one who stated he does want to tinker with the 2A? That's another stroke of pure genius!

And this is what I fear to happen on election day by 'patriots' who think they are serving themselves or their country patriotically with a write in. Essentially a vote for Obama...I mean, I learned this stuff in middle school civics class. C'mon people...don't let your patriotism get the best of you.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,677
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top