The Bill was titled something like the Public Safety Act or something along those lines. It was essentially a state level bill to replace the '94 Clinton AWB, and was championed by Gov Romney. He could have stood on principal and vetoed it. The legislature could have overridden his veto, but at least he could have stood firm. Oh, those concessions weren't concession for Romney, they were concessions for GOAL (Gun Owners Action League... state level organization of the NRA), and those concessions were extremely weak, and the Governor wouldn't even allow the GOAL representative on stage at the very public signing. For those that are unfamiliar, the ONLY concession was increasing the licensing period of a License to Carry (which you actually needed to own a weapon... not just carry) to five years from three. Only thing was it also raised the cost from $25 to $100, so it effectively raised the cost from $8.33 per year to $20 per year. So, no, I don't give him any credit for doing anything positive for our rights. This was a tax increase and another unnecessary and unconstitutional burden on our ability to bear arms.The Annoyed Man wrote:Last comment, and then I don't think I have anything of further value to add to this thread.....
Regarding Romney and the Massachusetts AWB: Romney was a republican governor of an overwhelmingly democrat state, dealing with a legislature that was something like 80% democrat. That law was going to pass, with or without his signature on it. He had the following choices:
Of those choices, #4 was the toughest, and the most adult. That is the path that Romney chose. I think that on the AWB part of it, he kind of stuck his finger up, checked the wind, and went with the popular sentiment. The AWB passed, but, and this is the tough adult part, he did get included some concessions making licensed CCW somewhat less onorous than it previously was—a concession that NOBODY in the legislature would have agreed to without his engaging in the process, and which would have never gotten out of commitee in a free-standing piece of legislation.
- Resign, so that he wouldn't have to deal with it.
- Stay in office, and veto the bill. The MA legislature would have easily overridden his veto and rammed the bill up his wazoo.
- Stay in office, refuse to engage its proponents, resign himself to the inevitable, and sign the bill.
- Stay in office, engage its proponents, and have a part in shaping it to be even slightly less poisonous if possible.
So the end result is that the Massachusetts AWB is known as the Romney AWB (and he had literally no control over the naming of it), and he gets stuck with the credit/discredit for it, but Massachusetts CHL holders have some easing of the restrictions on them because of it........something which very few people in the gun world ever give him credit for.
It created a licensing hurdle to own a firearm, one that local law enforcement could (and often did) deny without any legal justification (especially in areas like Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge). It placed further limitations on the amount of ammunition one could possess. It banned certain brands of firearms based solely on the Sec of State's assessment of safety. The list goes on, but sufficed to say, Mitt Romney is no defender of my right to bear arms. I experienced this first-hand when I had the unfortunate displeasure of being a subject of the state there for two years.
Romney called semi-automatic rifles evil and said their sole purpose was to kill people in public statements, renounced the NRA, saying he didn't "line up" with their beliefs, and promised to strengthen MA's gun control laws in office.