Romney and MA "Assault Weapons" law.

[rsilvers]

I have held a grudge against Romney ever since he signed the 2004 update of the MA "AW" law.

I was just reading the GOAL site, and they said they supported the 2004 Chapter 150 signing.

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

GOAL's claim is that Section 131M already banned the rifles in 1998, and so sport/utility rifles would be banned in MA today, even if Romney did not sign Chapter 150 in 2004. I was not aware of this, but it seems plausibly true.

In fact, GOAL *wanted* new language re-affirming the ban on (so called) AW to happen in 2004, because the federal law, they claimed, had important exemptions which were not in Section 131M.

Still, I am not sure it could be seen as a win to "reaffirm" the 1998 law in 2004. It will just be that much harder to get rid of later. Especially since it was signed by a Republican Gov so the liberals can say it had massive bipartisan support.

So, was GOAL correct to push for the 2004 update?

Should I forgive Romney for signing it if GOAL says Chapter 150 was a win? Or did GOAL just have Stockholm syndrome from working with Romney's staffers?

 

[bfm]

Not sure I recall all the details, but I do remember it being a case of accept the existing bad or get something even worse. No way we were going to get anything better.

 

[Ham Slam]

''There are a lot of good things in the bill," said Jim Wallace, legislative director of the Gun Owners Action League, the state's leading pro-gun group. ''In all, the bill represents a healing process, or the beginning of the healing process, between lawful gun owners and the Massachusetts Legislature."

This is a direct quote from the Boston Globe article which was written on 06/24/2004, the article was regarding the passage of the MA Assaults weapons ban.

I have my own opinon about GOALs actions, but I'll keep them to myself.

 

[rsilvers]

Except GOAL says the 2004 event was not the moment for which guns were banned in MA. It was actually 1998. I am seeking if GOAL is correct or not.

 

[Mike-Mike]

 

[terraformer]

View attachment 18279

This. The ban was already extended. The 2004 law surreptitiously made it more clear what was and was not allowed. Some people in the state thought they were getting something else, but reading comprehension was clearly not their strong suit.

 

[Ham Slam]

Well they passed the bill in 2004 for a reason and I'm sure it wasn't because they were helping out gun owners.

 

[terraformer]

Well they passed the bill in 2004 for a reason and I'm sure it wasn't because they were helping out gun owners.

I get that, but the reality is it didn't make things worse, only better. Keep in mind, the ban was sunsetting, the antis were filling their depends on a daily basis and politicians don't like to be seen as doing nothing. In comes this bill to "fix" the sunsetting of the AWB in MA which had already been fixed 6 years earlier. 6 years is 3 terms ago. The current crop of legis-traitors (and that DB Romney) wanted their piece of the political pie. They all claimed to have "fixed" the sunsetting problem in MA. Being the idiots they are, the press never challenged this assumption.

Believe me, there were people who were shocked that AR-15s were still on the shelves after this. They didn't get it. They still don't. Linsky is still trying to "fix" this screwup by banning all semi autos in 2011...

 

[Emoto]

Well they passed the bill in 2004 for a reason and I'm sure it wasn't because they were helping out gun owners.

What the libtard hacks were really looking for was a prop to wave as they sought to solidify their political bases. I will admit that they showed some cunning in devising the (completely bogus) reasoning that they used, as the average MA citizen would go glassy-eyed and not really bother to follow it and assume that they knew what they were doing. Understand that the hackerama that is our legislature is entirely self-serving. Recall all of the swirling anti-gun rhetoric that was being floated on a national level as the fed ban was about to expire. Our useless hacks saw the opportunity to make political hay. To generate something that made them look good to their moonbat constituencies that would be an easy pass - no significant opposition, no large group of voters that would be alienated, and nearly endless opportunity to go on the news and give interviews to the papers and generally bloviate about what a fantastic job they were doing keeping evil guns off the streets, yadda yadda.

So, the bill that Romney signed did not ban anything that wasn't already permanently banned and it gave gun owners several victories. This does NOT mean that Romney has any core principles or beliefs relating to RKBA.

 

[Ham Slam]

I get that, but the reality is it didn't make things worse, only better. Keep in mind, the ban was sunsetting, the antis were filling their depends on a daily basis and politicians don't like to be seen as doing nothing. In comes this bill to "fix" the sunsetting of the AWB in MA which had already been fixed 6 years earlier. 6 years is 3 terms ago. The current crop of legis-traitors (and that DB Romney) wanted their piece of the political pie. They all claimed to have "fixed" the sunsetting problem in MA. Being the idiots they are, the press never challenged this assumption.

Believe me, there were people who were shocked that AR-15s were still on the shelves after this. They didn't get it. They still don't. Linsky is still trying to "fix" this screwup by banning all semi autos in 2011...

Well if there is a guy on here I can rely on to give a no bullshit assessment its you. So nothing changed?

 

[terraformer]

Well if there is a guy on here I can rely on to give a no bullshit assessment its you. So nothing changed?

It changed, but only in that it clarified the list of banned firearms, etc and aligned the MA AWB with the federal one that was expiring. It didn't have an impact on the actual effect of the law beyond making things clearer. It has been a long time since I looked at it so I can't give you examples off the top of my head.

 

[kingfisher]

What the libtard hacks were really looking for was a prop to wave as they sought to solidify their political bases. I will admit that they showed some cunning in devising the (completely bogus) reasoning that they used, as the average MA citizen would go glassy-eyed and not really bother to follow it and assume that they knew what they were doing. Understand that the hackerama that is our legislature is entirely self-serving. Recall all of the swirling anti-gun rhetoric that was being floated on a national level as the fed ban was about to expire. Our useless hacks saw the opportunity to make political hay. To generate something that made them look good to their moonbat constituencies that would be an easy pass - no significant opposition, no large group of voters that would be alienated, and nearly endless opportunity to go on the news and give interviews to the papers and generally bloviate about what a fantastic job they were doing keeping evil guns off the streets, yadda yadda.

So, the bill that Romney signed did not ban anything that wasn't already permanently banned and it gave gun owners several victories. This does NOT mean that Romney has any core principles or beliefs relating to RKBA.

Bloviate—what a great word; so visual, and it actually sounds like what it means! Reps to you, sir, for properly using bloviate in a sentence and for the helpful analysis in your post.

 

[Emoto]

Bloviate—what a great word; so visual, and it actually sounds like what it means! Reps to you, sir, for properly using bloviate in a sentence and for the helpful analysis in your post.

Thanks for the kind words. Just remember they're only my goofball opinion and worth every penny you paid for them.

 

[kevin9]

...This does NOT mean that Romney has any core principles or beliefs relating to RKBA.

And thus to the point. If had any such beliefs, and any real skill at politicking, he maybe could have worked behind the scenes to get what little we did get anyway, ignored it publicly, pocket veto it, and let the legislature override it. Instead as I recall he jumped on the bandwagon.

 

[Emoto]

And thus to the point. If had any such beliefs, and any real skill at politicking, he maybe could have worked behind the scenes to get what little we did get anyway, ignored it publicly, pocket veto it, and let the legislature override it. Instead as I recall he jumped on the bandwagon.

Well, they wanted his signature, so he got the GOAL amendments in. At least that's how I see it. Had he vetoed it (and I have NO idea if he would even consider a veto) there would have been no adding nice things for us. At least he gave GOAL access even if he wasn't exactly a staunch ally, unlike the nitwit we have in there now.

 

[FPrice]

I saved the paperwork that came out talking about this bill. Perhaps the most damning thing Romney did was to issue a press release which stated that:

"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."

As a footnote, two months later I received a letter from Romney while he was attending the Republican National Convention in New York City asking for my support, financial and otherwise, for the Massachusetts Republican Party. I sent back a rather strongly-worded letter (yeah, even I laugh at that now) tossing his words back in his face and explaining why I was going to give directly to candidates who mirrored my views and to support otrher voters who did the same.

His reply?

[crickets]

I voted for Mitt once. I don't think I can repeat that act again.

 

[MisterHappy]

Politicians play to the biggest group of voters that they can reasonable hope to court.

Most people in Mass are not gun owners, and can't tell the difference between a "clip" and a "shoulder thing that goes up."

Any potential Masspol that has a "2A - all the way" basis for their campaign platform will not be communiting to Beacon Hill.

 

[mark056]

And thus to the point. If had any such beliefs, and any real skill at politicking, he maybe could have worked behind the scenes to get what little we did get anyway, ignored it publicly, pocket veto it, and let the legislature override it. Instead as I recall he jumped on the bandwagon.

Exactly !!

 

[noddaduma]

It changed, but only in that it clarified the list of banned firearms, etc and aligned the MA AWB with the federal one that was expiring. It didn't have an impact on the actual effect of the law beyond making things clearer. It has been a long time since I looked at it so I can't give you examples off the top of my head.

That's too bad it was clarified... Muddied and unclear gun laws are just that much more vulnerable to being stricken down in the courts.

 

[terraformer]

That's too bad it was clarified... Muddied and unclear gun laws are just that much more vulnerable to being stricken down in the courts.

Yeah, but vague ones can be made clear, clear ones can be attacked on purely 2a grounds easier.

 

[GSG]

That's too bad it was clarified... Muddied and unclear gun laws are just that much more vulnerable to being stricken down in the courts.

They can also be completely misunderstood by the courts, or enforced differently across the state, both of which we see now.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Muddied and unclear gun laws are just that much more vulnerable to being stricken down in the courts.

Not necessarily.

A muddled and unclear law can create a climate of fear in which gun buyers/owners and/or dealers must consider certain activities unlawful and avoid certain conduct out of fear of prosecution - but the ambiguity can make it hard to establish standing since there is simply a fear or prosecution. It is hard to establish standing on a hypothetical injury that might, or might not, occur.

This means that someone wishing to challenge an ambiguous law in court must first meet the burden of proving that they harmed by a law that is ambiguous; they are not charged with violating; and they may not even be able to prove others have been harmed by.

"Standing" is a technique used by the other side to short-circuit a plaintiff's case and prevent them from even presenting the legal issues to the court, and a trick used by courts to avoid rulings that are difficult; controversial or where the court desired outcome conflicts with what the law dictates.

A great example is Newdow vs. Elk Grove. The plaintiff argued that "under god" in the pledge was a violation of the 1st amendment. Public sentiment is clearly on the side of keeping it in, but it is also difficult to construct a logical framework that does not conclude this is a religious endorsement, particularly when you look at this history of how it got there, or ask if "Under Allah" would be accepted as readily. While it's not possible to know the actual motivation of the 8 supremes (Scalia recused himself as he ad made statements favoring "under god"), it's worth noting that the majority of the court used "standing" to avoid issuing a decision on a controversial issue.

 

[KMaurer]

Well, they wanted his signature, so he got the GOAL amendments in. ...

It was actually a little bit more complicated. GOAL had some bills stuck in committee that represented significant improvements in the situation here. At the same time, the usual gaggle of hoplophobes was going ballistic over the likely expiration of the federal AWB. They were floating a new state AWB proposal that would have made things much worse for us all (e.g., removing the grandfathering of pre-ban firearms, adding a long list of new guns to the prohibited category, etc.) GOAL quietly came up with their own bill that made two changes in the existing state AWB: it specified that the existing reference to the federal ban was to the law as originally passed in '94 (thus eliminating the groundless fears that the expiration of the federal law would somehow eliminate the state law), and explicitly incorporating the federal list of guns that could never be deemed to be assault weapons. They agreed to this version of a new state AWB law in return for their reforms. The new deal represented a real win for Mass residents. The only real gripe people had with Romney was his signing statement and a couple of public statements shortly afterwards in which he touted not the reforms we had gained, but the illusory gains in the "new, tougher" state AWB.

Ken

 

[Emoto]

Thanks for that clarification, Ken.

 

[rsilvers]

Yes, I remember the statements where he or maybe Healy said how great it was that we now will never have these guns in MA.

One question - how come the anti gunners float their ideal laws - GPS tracking, microstamping, one gun a month - but we only float laws which have a chance of passing? Since negotiations settle in the middle, I think we don't ask for enough.

We should try to eliminate the state permit on full autos, not have a ban on silencers, and do away with the AG regs which basically banned normal handguns.

 

[mark056]

Well I fully understand the GOAL strategy and thanks Ken for reminding us of the situation at the time.

My biggest issue with Romney (and Healy) is that they didn't try to take on the AG and the lists.

 

[rsilvers]

I think Romney did what most MA residents wanted. He does represent the people.

As President, I have no doubt he would do something else.

Even Obama - when representing Shitcago, was far more liberal than he is as President.

I think Romney could have signed these laws without making a public statement about how great it was to ban the single most popular self-defense, hunting, and action sport rifle in the US.

By the way, you can file SBR paperwork and then it no longer is an AW by MA law, and you can ditch the loud muzzle brake for a flash suppressor. Yes, it is $200 and a pain and needs engraving, but we can own cool things in MA - they just cost a lot.

 

[drgrant]

By the way, you can file SBR paperwork and then it no longer is an AW by MA law, and you can ditch the loud muzzle brake for a flash suppressor. Yes, it is $200 and a pain and needs engraving, but we can own cool things in MA - they just cost a lot.

Depends on who you believe. There are solid arguments going both ways on this, but no solid case law. I doubt there will ever be case law, either, as NFA paperwork, at least seen by a decent cop probably tends to induce the "well, these aren't the droids we're looking for." response.

-Mike

 

[rsilvers]

Well my SBR is on a preban lower, but I regret doing that. Especially since my preban lower is a Colt with a non-standard front pin and a sear block. I was so upset I could not put a Geissele trigger in it.

 

[rsilvers]

http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812