View Single Post
Old 10-28-2012, 21:50   #263
Senior Member
Schlitz's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Acujeff View Post
Actually, Romney was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-2A bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006. Romney only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills into law.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature. It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.


If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal assault weapon exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law and correct some abuses in MA‘s gun laws.


If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004. But, unlike those folks, I've posted the laws and facts. I challenge them to show us in those laws where their fabrications are documented.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from bills like the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney‘s entire record:

Recently discovered report forces the question: Do I owe Mitt Romney an apology?
by Chad D. Baus
- it appears that the central "fact" that most gun owners "know" about Mitt Romney - namely that he signed a new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 - isn't a fact at all. My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go "All In," to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama. Mr Romney, for whatever it's worth, I apologize.

Romney has already been politically tested on the RKBA against a congress that was 85% anti-2A and his record is all pro-2A which is very encouraging for gun owners.

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

Here's President Obama's record:
Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), which lead to orders registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, using the ATF to harass gun shops out of business and promoting the UN Gun Ban Treaty. He also appointed two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts.

Under an expansion of the civil forfeiture doctrine, Obama has just given the ATF the power to seize your firearms if they choose to, without due process, and even if you are not under investigation. Under Obama’s new decree, if the ATF says they are going to confiscate your firearms, they can.

Imagine what he'll do if he gets a second term. In the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce, lots more anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices. Obama and the Democrats are campaigning not only on making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, but also making guns “childproof”, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

Romney is not "the same as Obama", the "lesser of evils" or "Obama-lite". In 2008 he was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. The NRA is endorsing the Romney/ Ryan ticket for this election. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

Romney is campaigning on dismantling Obama's anti-gun actions in the UN and on the Southern border, appointing a new Attorney General and make sure Fast and Furious is actually investigated and prosecuted, stop the abuses of the ATF, and appointing up to four more pro-RKBA Supreme Court Justices.

It's up to individual gun-owners to to get the facts and make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Romney‘s positions:
The Okie Corral
Originally Posted by ilgunguygt View Post
So given the choice we should vote for Obama, right? Because he is better for gun owners?
You still think that someone HAS to be republican or democrat? I don't advocate for supporting any of these guys.
If you cant read the party platforms and listen to what they have to say in the debates to understand the difference, then you certainly the one lacking the common sense.
Listen to what they say in debates? Like when Romney tried to make us believe the AWB was about automatics? And when he said automatics are illegal here?
Why dont you read the post between mine and yours while you are at it! Its amazing how smart some internet trolls arent.
>calling someone dumb on the internet
>simultaneously failing to use apostrophes when needed
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, ...
Schlitz is offline   Reply With Quote