Posted on 12/31/2007 8:52:38 PM PST by Spiff
Boston, MA – To correct Governor Mike Huckabee's misstatements on "Meet The Press" today, Governor Mitt Romney released the following statement reiterating his support for our pro-life and pro-Second Amendment platform:
"Just days before the people of Iowa begin the process of selecting the Republican nominee, I want to reiterate my commitment to our party's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment values. I am proud to be firmly pro-life. As Governor, every decision I made came down on the side of life and I will be a pro-life President. When it comes to protecting the Second Amendment, I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As President, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality. I am proud of my record of defending life and the Second Amendment."
MYTH: On NBC's "Meet The Press," Governor Huckabee Questioned Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record. GOVERNOR HUCKABEE: "...[W]hen he comes on and says he's pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state's health care plan." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 12/30/07)
FACT: Governor Romney Has A Record Of Siding With Life:
Governor Mitt Romney Is Pro-Life And Believes "Abortion Is The Wrong Choice." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
Governor Romney: "Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life." (Robert Behre, "Romney Gets S.C. Support," Charleston Post-Courier, 1/30/07)
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
- Governor Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
- Governor Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
- Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
Governor Romney Has Been Recognized For His Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts. "Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us. He's a busy man these days and we are extra fortunate that he and his wife Ann could be with us. Governor, you have been an inspirational leader in many ways. And if I may say so, Mitt, you're looking very presidential. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our friend, Governor Mitt Romney, to the podium as our 2007 Mullins Award Winner for Outstanding Political Leadership." (Kevin Jourdain, Remarks, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)
FACT: Under The Bill Signed By The Governor, The Health Care Benefits Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Body Separate From The Governor's Office:
The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. "The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty Level." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov/, Accessed 2/5/07)
- The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. "The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don't already have it." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov/, Accessed 2/5/07)
FACT: Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
- According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
- In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
MYTH: On NBC's "Meet The Press," Governor Huckabee Questioned Governor Romney's Commitment To The Second Amendment. GOVERNOR HUCKABEE: "...[W]hen he claims that he's really for the Second Amendment, but he – on this show he talked about how he supported limitations and restrictions on lawful, law-abiding citizens having gun ownership rights, those are not the marks of a person who's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 12/30/07)
FACT: Governor Romney Has A Strong Pro-Second Amendment Agenda:
Governor Romney Strongly Supports An Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment. Governor Romney believes in safe and responsible gun ownership. He recognizes there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and he thinks they're wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and those who misuse guns.
- Governor Romney Has A Distinguished Record As Governor of Massachusetts In Defending Our Second Amendment Rights. His efforts on behalf of gun owners have been lauded by gun rights and sportsmen's advocates.
Governor Romney Believes The Second Amendment Protects Essential Freedoms And Supports The Constitutional Right Of Law Abiding Citizens To Keep And Bear Arms. "As president, I'll honor the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families and property and for all other lawful purposes, including the common defense." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
- Governor Romney Believes The Second Amendment Is About More Than Just Self-Defense Or Sport; It's About The Basic Freedom Of Lawful Citizens To Live Their Lives. The Second Amendment was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights to protect the rights of our citizens to own firearms. Bumper sticker gun control does not protect the individual but instead takes away protections and penalizes law-abiding citizens. Criminals do not buy guns in stores nor subject themselves to background checks. Law-abiding citizens certainly have a right to protect their homes and their families.
- Governor Romney Believes We Need To Focus On Enforcing Our Current Laws Rather Than Creating More Laws That Burden Lawful Gun Owners.
Like President Bush, Governor Romney Would Have Signed The Assault Weapons Ban Extension At That Time. As Governor Romney stated on CNN and "Meet the Press," had he been President and had the Assault Weapons Ban extension reached his desk, like President Bush, he would have signed it. That bill did not pass Congress. Governor Romney has stated that he would not reinstate that Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, Governor Romney does not support any new gun laws including a ban on semi-automatic firearms. He would consider limitations on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive weapons. (NBC's "Meet The Press," 12/16/07; CNN's "The Situation Room," 11/26/07; The Des Moines Register, 10/23/07)
Governor Romney Supports Court Decisions That Strengthen The Second Amendment. "Finally, let me say that one of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. Lawsuits have been filed seeking to take away the individual's right to bear arms. We have to look no further than the Parker case. I hope the Roberts court takes the Parker case and upholds the Bill of Rights to protect gun owners everywhere. I've made it clear that I'll appoint judges who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution, judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. It's simply wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. They should follow the law in the Constitution, not make new law." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
Governor Romney Supports The Rights Of Pro-Second Amendment Groups To Be Involved In The Political Process. "And I'll ask Congress to repeal the McCain-Feingold law which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the NRA to advocate for issues we care about. Some parts have already been declared unconstitutional. We ought to get rid of the entire bill." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
Governor Romney Opposes Backdoor Attempts To Ban Guns. "We need tort reform as well. That's the way we fight the backdoor attempt to ban guns by bankrupting manufacturers." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
FACT: Governor Romney Repeatedly Sided With Massachusetts Gun Owners And Sportsmen In Defending Second Amendment Rights:
On The 31st Anniversary Of Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), Governor Romney Declared May 7, 2005 As "Right To Bear Arms Day" In Massachusetts. (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, http://www.goal.org/, Accessed 2/19/07)
- The Boston Globe: "Also, in 2005, Romney designated May 7 as 'The Right to Bear Arms Day' in Massachusetts to honor 'the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.'" (Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)
In July 2006, Governor Romney Signed Legislation Reversing Burdensome Regulations For The Makers Of Customized Target Pistols. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption For Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/06)
- GOAL Executive Director James Wallace: "Target shooters are an important part of our membership and I know they will be very pleased with this change." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption For Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/06)
In November 2005, Governor Romney Signed Legislation Clarifying The Definition Of A Loaded Muzzleloader. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation aimed at providing one clear definition of a loaded shotgun or rifle for the state's hunting enthusiasts. ... 'Today, we are simplifying the gun laws in Massachusetts,' Romney said. 'With this legislation, our hunters will know precisely what is expected of them.' ... Hunters now no longer face the lengthy, complex and unnecessary task of cleaning the barrel every time they encounter a public way, nor will they unknowingly violate the law by only removing a gun's priming device." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Resolves Long-Standing Conflict In State's Firearm Law," Press Release, 11/22/05)
- GOAL Executive Director James Wallace: "This new law addresses a conflict that had previously caused great concern in those who use traditional muzzle loading rifles and shotguns. Now they confidently know what is expected of them and can enjoy their heritage without the fear of being prosecuted for violating a poorly written law." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Resolves Long-Standing Conflict In State's Firearm Law," Press Release, 11/22/05)
Governor Romney Signed Into Law A Provision Providing Free Replacement Licenses. (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, http://www.goal.org/, Accessed 2/19/07)
In 2005, Governor Mitt Romney "Suspended 'Administrative Fees' To The Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Fund Of Massachusetts." (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, http://www.goal.org/ Accessed 2/19/07)
In July 2004, Governor Romney Signed Major Legislation Supported By Gun Owners That Reformed The State's Onerous Gun Laws. "The bill enjoyed the support of Massachusetts gun owners because it also encompassed several measures they favored – including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry." (Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)
- NRA Website: "NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms." (NRA Official Website, http://www.nraila.org/, Accessed 10/16/07)
- NRA Website: "...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." (NRA Official Website, http://www.nraila.org/, Accessed 10/16/07)
The Law Governor Romney Signed Made A Number Of Improvements To Help Sportsmen, Including:
- Establishing The Firearm License Review Board To Review Cases Of Those Applying To Have Their Firearm Licenses Restored.
- Extending The Term Of Firearm Licenses From Four Years To Six Years.
- Re-Instating A 90-Day Grace Period For Citizens Trying To Renew Their Firearm License.
If that frightens you, I would suggest that just to calm your nerves, you should go buy whatever weapon you wanted that was banned by the AWB now, while it’s legal.
After all, AWB did not prohibited OWNING the guns, just BUYING them. Unlike the ban on civilians owning any new machine guns, which is a ban on ownership itself, not just purchase.
When Romney ran for governor, he never once said he was endorsed by the NRA. And in fact, he was not endorsed by the NRA.
When the issue came up recently, the campaign pointed out that Romney was not endorsed by the NRA in his run for Governor, which is why Romney used the word “support”, not “endorse”. The NRA did provide support to his campaign.
Just like Fred Thompson just sent me another nice e-mail saying I’ve supported him, and thanking me. I haven’t endorsed him, but we all know that “endorse” is a different word than “support”.
Maybe you are confused because the NRA endorsed his work on the AWB bill. They are two different things, and sometimes people get them mixed up.
Yes, I try to be precise but in the course of making brief statements I might not cover every exception.
Ban is the right term to use for the current law on machine guns. civilians are banned from owning any machine gun manufactured since 1986 — that’s a straight ban on machine guns.
And for all other machine guns, ordinary civilians are effectively banned from owning them. If you want to own one, you have to apply for permission. You have to provide evidence that you NEED the weapon for a specific purpose. The application can be rejected for any reason, so you only get the gun if ATF is feeling generous.
Except if you live in one of the states that bans ALL ownership, regardless of the ATF’s permission. In THOSE states, all ownership of machine guns are banned.
In contrast, the AWB NEVER banned any weapons. It banned the sale of those weapons, but now the ownership by those who already had them. And yet we all say it’s an assault weapons ban, and nobody gets hung up on the nuances unless we are having a technical discussion of the bill.
Again you conveniently ignore,"shall not be infringed" this typical of liberals.
I think California has banned ownership of so called assault weapons.
My role play was a very simple method, showing how Mitt manipulates his position to satisfy his liberal political agenda. Once he has opened the gate, or lifted the tent, the liberal battle plan is put into affect. Incrementally shred the Constitution, which has already begun. The next POTUS must appoint Conservative judges who believe and have records which support that the Constitution is written in Stone and is not a living document.
Romney does not have that kind of a record.
Per the interview
Maybe it was the pressure of the moment. Being under the Tim Russert spotlight can get to anyone. Under Russert's grilling about guns on this morning's "Meet the Press," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney claimed an endorsement he'd never won.
In answer to questions about whether he would sign an assault weapons ban, Romney said: "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. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support."
Later in the interview, he added the following:
"I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA."
Straight from slick master himself!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/romney_claims_nra_endorsement.html
The first quote says “support”, and involves his run for governor. He did have their support, but not their endorsement.
The second quote says “what I did AS governor, the fact that I receieved the endorsement of the NRA”. What he did AS governor was work with the NRA on the AWB bill, which was what Russert had asked about. The NRA endorsed his work on the AWB, he worked with them to make the bill better.
Both statements are true. Some people got confused and thought that his 2nd statement was referencing his first statement, so his campaign issued a statement clearing up that misconception.
You win the spin award of the year and it is only day one. LOL
I don’t deserve it, I already explained this last year, so it’s not new work.
Beautiful pic of the Brown Bess....wish I had one in my collection! As I said anyone who doesn’t understand the Second AMendment is our last defense to self government doesn’t understand what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Amendment. All any candidate needs to do to understand this is read the Federalist Papers...go read the quotes and writings of Fisher Ames who wrote the orginal SA! You can sure tell Romney hasn’t read it or he doesn’t believe the words written as to why the individual right to keep and bear arms was so important to the men who fought the British Empire for our freedom.
I would challenge you to name one weapon which the Founders intended to permit Congress to ban. The march of military technology does not automatically modify the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It means today what it meant to the Founders.
Also, the federal AWB created a class of "grandfathered" rifles which had certain characteristics. Just like the ban on machine gun manufacture, it became illegal to manufacture a "new" assault weapon by attaching any two of the infamous "assault weapon" features.
Finally, despite the expiration of the federal ban, the anti-gunners have succeeded in enacting "bans" in both Kalifornia and Massachusetts. In Kalifornia, if you owned an affected weapon prior to a particular date you could continue to "own" it but you were required to register it with the state within 90 days. I put "own" in quotation marks because one's heirs cannot inherit the weapon in Kalifornia. By law, I believe that the executor of the estate of an "assault weapon" owner must give up the weapon.
I don’t know how one would prove that the founders would approve of a ban on any particular type of weapon, nor am I inclined to support any ban on weapons, at least “personal” weapons.
By “personal” weapons, I mean weapons that would be used by an individual against an individual. I don’t think I want the average citizen to be able to purchase an anti-aircraft weapon, an RPG, or a mortar, for example — but I’m not saying I could prove that banning those things would not go against the founder’s wishes.
The reason I used the word “virtually” is because I am certain that there are a small group who would completely lift all bans on the purchase of weapons. But I doubt there would be enough of them to fill a stadium.
Who is going to sign off on allowing the average person to buy a suitcase nuclear device, after all? Do we want Bill Gates to own his own Abrams tank, or Warren Buffet to have a fleet of stealth fighters?
I do realise that without access to more lethal weapons, the 2nd amendment’s promise of a citizenry that can overcome the government is without effect. In the days of the revolution, there were no tanks, no powered equipment, no airplanes, and in the end the only real advantage an army had over a group of individuals was they might have some cannons (and of course ships if you were near a large body of water).
A ragtag group of citizens could not hope to defeat a warship, but the warship had limited ability to cause damage once you moved inland, and the enemy then had to march after you, with only what they could carry, which means you were up against similar weapons to what you were carrying.
Nowadays, the military can destroy you without you ever getting to see who it is that killed you. No weapon you could possess would protect you, or give you the ability to rise up and overthrow the government (reminds me of a star trek NG episode whe the Cheliack conglomerate was taking over a planet).
We can still do so, but we need help from the state militias, which DO have possession of some tanks, airplanes, and other more serious weaponry.
Anyway, the question isn’t whether there are a few people who would lift all bans, but whether any of our candidates are promising to do ANYTHING about ANY current gun laws. I looked at the web sites, and I don’t see ANY candidate promising to repeal a single national gun law.
Instead, I see support for gun-free zones, even from stalwarts like Fred Thompson. I see most of our candidates saying that the key to our security is aggressive Law Enforcement, and strict enforcement of current gun laws — when you and I know that the key to security is an armed citizenry, that LEO only shows up after people are dead and the situation is secure.
I realise they are being politically expedient, and so I give them all a pass. As I said, I simply do not think it is rational to single out Mitt Romney as unacceptable when his position is only about 1% different from Fred Thompson, when looking at all the different issues surrounding gun ownership and gun carry.
One question: Have any of our candidates given a specific promise to pass a federal law making it illegal for states like California and Mass. to ban weapons? I can’t find it on any web sites, maybe Ron Paul would.
I think that you are very wrong.
The military was not involved in the initial squabbles which brought about the American Revolution. It was tax collectors. If you wish to attack the government, you don't take on the military, you take on the Department of Motor Vehicles. You shut down City Hall. Even public schools would have to cease if the people in great numbers decided to abolish their present form of government.
If the government can't collect or spend taxes, then it ceases to exist.
They don't need to do that. The Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment already do. What the candidates need to do is nominate Justices who recognize that.
All the wishing in the world won't change the Second Amendment into something that anticipated that some arms might not be suitable for keeping and bearing by the people. If you want ANYTHING in the Constitution to have meaning, then you must permit EVERYTHING in it to have meaning.
Don't tell me that you believe that the First Amendment does not protect freedom of speech over radio, television, telephones or the internet. And don't tell me that the Constitution automatically changes to regulate such media simply because people today decide that our Founders would have.
Many of our Founders would agree that slavery is an abomination. But the Thirteenth Amendment was still required to eliminate the situation that was clearly incorporated into the Constitution.
George Washington thought that it would be a bad idea for any man to be President for more than two terms. That precedent lasted for a century and a half. Today it is the law of the land ONLY because the Constitution has been amended to enforce that limitation. It didn't become law just because it was generally recognized as sound policy.
It doesn't matter what I think, but what our candidates think. While they all talk about appointing strict constructionist judges, they don't specify how those judges would be expected to act on 2nd amendment issues of gun regulation.
For example, Fred Thompson is good on guns, but he also voted for some forms of gun control during his Senate term, and has said that he thinks states do have the right to regulate guns, for example to establish gun-free zones at public colleges (he opposes those zones, he supports the state's "right" to impose them).
Mitt opposes the DC gun ban, but seems to support the right of Massachusetts to pass some forms of gun control.
Of course, at the time of the founders, the 2nd amendment was only binding on the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.