Posted on 01/26/2008 8:41:55 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
Just answer the damned question, did you, or didn’t you?
no i didn’t.
For your information:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm
Subsection b states:
(b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.
Romney joined NRA in August
Was advocate of gun control
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was a former advocate of gun control. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was a former advocate of gun control.
By David Abel, Globe Staff | February 19, 2007
Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said.
A former advocate of gun control, Romney during his 1994 run for the US Senate backed measures the gun-rights group opposed, such as a five-day waiting period on gun sales and a ban on certain assault weapons.
The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized for changing his positions to appeal to social conservatives voting in Republican primaries. In a nationally broadcast interview yesterday, he also had to explain his switch to a conservative stance on abortion and why he once voted for Democrats in Massachusetts primaries.
Spokesman Kevin Madden said Romney did not join the NRA just to court gun owners, who are considered a force in Republican primary politics.
“He joined the NRA because, like millions of Americans, he supports the group’s advocacy of the Second Amendment and its commitment to education programs promoting the safe use of firearms by law-abiding gun owners,” Madden said.
More coverage of the 2008 presidential race
Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: “I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I’ve made that clear.”
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Romney said he signed up for a life long membership “within the last year.”
“I think they’re doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms,” Romney said.
Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney’s commitment to their cause.
“His past votes have been anti-gun and I feel like it may just be a campaign strategy that we’re not going to fall for,” said Gerald Stoudemire, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, an NRA state association. “I’ve never seen a politician change their way of thinking 180 degrees, except when they were running for office.”
In the interview, Romney also explained why he was a registered independent in the early 1990s and voted for former senator Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He said it was a tactical maneuver, his effort to get the weakest Democratic nominee.
“In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote on either the Republican or Democratic primary,” Romney said. “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican.”
But in a 1994 Globe story, Romney said he voted for Tsongas because he was from Massachusetts and “because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton,” according to the story.Continued...
In yesterday’s interview on ABC, Romney added: “Let me tell you, in the general election I don’t recall ever once voting for anyone other than a Republican. So, yeah, as an independent I’ll go in and play in their primary. But I’m a Republican and have been through my life.”
Romney’s explanation that he voted for Tsongas because he would be a weaker opponent for George H.W. Bush struck Northeastern University political science professor William Mayer as odd. “It would have been a strange election to cross over,” he said, noting it’s rare for more than 4 percent of voters to “raid” an opposing party’s primary. “Everyone had conceded it to Tsongas.”
He added: “His explanation gets to his basic problem. He’s always trying to figure out what’s in his best political interest and is willing to cut and trim his behavior to what’s in his short-term interests.”
In the interview, in which Stephanopoulos questioned the governor’s “conversions of convenience,” Romney, a former supporter of abortion rights, refused to say which punishment he thought would be appropriate for women who have abortions. In recent months, Romney has campaigned strongly against abortion rights.
“Well, I’m not about punishment,” Romney said. “That’s not what I’m considering. I’m saying that, in my view, we should let the states make that decision, and I am in favor of life and in favor of choosing life.”
With his wife, Ann, on ABC, Romney also said his faith as a Mormon would not hinder his ability to govern.
“I’m not running for pastor-in-chief; I’m running for commander-in-chief,” Romney said.
Asked whether his Mormonism would alienate evangelical voters, Romney said: “I think we are, if you will, one family of humanity.”
When asked how Muslims might view Mormon doctrine, which holds that Jesus will return to the United States and reign for 1,000 years, Romney said “that doesn’t happen to be a doctrine of my church.”
“Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives, and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth,” he said.
Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Mormons believe Jesus will return to both the “old Jerusalem” and “new Jerusalem,” which Mormons believe is somewhere in the state of Missouri.
“When Christ appears, we believe there will be people of many faiths on the Earth, and no one will be compelled to change their faith,” Purdy said.
Globe correspondent Michael Naughton contributed to this report. David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
1
No hoax... I lived there when this damn law was passed.
My buddy and I used to backpack in Western MA, around heavily wooded “mountainous” areas. We each carried, among our other pieces of “equipment,” a survival machete... a weapon of last resort, if, after the sun went down, you were short on ammo and a pack of coyotes surrounded your sorry ass.
This is typical Massachusetts legislation. It’s a freaking’ no-holds-barred police state... no matter where you go. That is why I left the accursed hell hole. When the invasion comes, I truly hope that miserable piece of real estate gets nuked.
I don’t think Romney was governor when this “law” passed. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
This 'law' is not listed in the General Laws Of Massachusetts web site:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/
Do a search.
Was it? Hell, I do all I can to stay away from Massachusetts politics, I get sick to my stomach and throw up really easy! If it was "vetoed by the governor", why don't you tell us about it!
“This ‘law’ is not listed in the General Laws Of Massachusetts web site:...”
Somebody had better tell the jack-booted thugs on the Westfield Storm Troo...er ah, I mean “Police force” that piece of info, ‘cause they WERE ENFORCING THIS “BAN”... as was Connecticut. Trust me... I found out the “hard” way.
You really need to relax a bit. If you can, go back and re-read my post. I NEVER stated as FACT that it was vetoed by the governor. That is why I posted that as a QUESTION. And right before that I ASKED WHY it was not passed and answered that with I DO NOT KNOW.
All I am telling you, and I will type SLOWLY so you can UNDERSTAND me is: THIS LAW IS NOT LISTED ON THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS WEB SITE. Why? I DO NOT KNOW YET.
Man, you are sure letting your HATRED of Romney blind you to facts.
1) It was vetoed by the governor and the veto was not overridden by the legislature.
or
2) It was withdrawn by the legislature.
or
3) It was voided by some court action.
I would agree with you. Trouble is, up to this point, I cannot verify it one or the other.
No luck on my part either.
I did think of a fourth possibility. I don't know that MA law provides for a 'pocket veto' like the federal system does. If a bill is passed at the end of a congressional session, the president's refusal to sign the bill effectively vetoes it without him actually doing so. As I say, though, I don't know if MA law has this provision.
“...Man, you are sure letting your HATRED of Romney blind you to facts”
Let me ask you this: Do you live in Massachusetts? Have you ever lived there? Unless you experience this cozy Commie-wealth, then you will never “Get it.”
Who is governor does not matter squat. Cause the state legislature is packed with perverts, philanderers, parasites, perfidious poltroons, and prevaricators. The court system is a frigging wasteland of red tape and Marxist malfeasance. And the political machinery from Province town to Pittsfield is riddled with favoritism, nepotism, and corruption.
NO-ONE gets “elected” to the corner office... but the “chosen” disciples of the NYT/Boston Globe elite. Romney may talk conservative NOW... but he sure did not get into the governor’s mansion by BEING conservative THEN. If you think otherwise, then you’re drinking RINO Kool-aid.
The Mass legislature and the SJC rule the roost. Period. The damn fascists blatantly break the State Constitution, and get away with it... long enough to shove whatever sh*t they please down the throats of the unfortunate saps whom “live” there... if you call servitude under a socialist reprobate dictatorship “living”.
You want to know how things work in the Gay State? Read or listen to Howie Carr... That guy knows the sordid secrets of Fagachusetts more than any other individual on the planet. You might also check out www.massnews.com The ONLY conservative paper in the Commonwealth.
I am in the same boat as you. Maybe someone in MA will chime in sometime to let us know exactly what happened here.
The only other thing I have been able to locate was some law maker named Donato evidently was involved with this bill. But, finding info on why the amendment never saw the light of day?? No luck so far.
Maybe you should start a thread where people who hate Massachusetts can post?
By the way, who the governor was at the time was the entire reason for the post in the first place.
“The secondary point was: Why did the bill evidently fail?”
This might give a clue...
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st01/st01384.htm
“Weapon of Unusual Lethality?”
Especially to vegetation...
That’s a confusing phrase when we’re discussing MA politicians.
About twenty years ago some nut in a traffic altercation on the route 128, the beltway around Boston, went nuts and began whacking others on the roadside with a machete. Given that no one uses machetes for ordinary work in Massachusetts (we are a service economy - manufacturing and farming are gone), I suspect the Great and General Court (the legislature) instituted a new law on possession of machetes. This was long, long before anyone knew of Mitt Romney. In Massachusetts we have rules on everything. Mitt did not add to them. He worked in the executive branch of the government, not the legislative. The Rudy, Paul, and McCain followers are grasping.
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.