Mitt Romney has big problems with 2nd Amendment advocates

Will he be willing to listen and learn since he might be representing all of America instead of just the liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Of course he supports the 2nd Amendment, what the heck else is he going to say? But it is his actions – or inactions – as governor of Massachusetts we should be looking at, not what he’s saying now.

The Massachusetts Assault Weapon Ban
After the federal assault weapon ban expired, Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and the Massachusetts legislature thought it would be good to implement a state ban and make it permanent in 2004. As I’ve mentioned before, assault weapon bans that limit the features of a rifle is feel-good legislation that does nothing to reduce crime.

I’d like to ask Romney this question about the ban. Which of the two rifles shown below is illegal in states like Massachusetts that have a miss-named “assault weapon ban?” (Click on each for a larger view.) For this question, assume the rifles have a 10-round capacity magazine, not shown.


Both of the above rifles deliver one round each time you pull the trigger (semiautomatic), and both shoot 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington rounds. They both have the same barrel length. The rifle on the left includes a two-point sling, fore grip, a high-intensity flash light mounted on a quad rail, a red dot scope along with a 3x magnifier.

Believe it or not, the rifle on the right, hanging on the peg-board wall is banned in Massachusetts simply because the stock of the rifle can be adjusted into multiple positions. What kind of sense is that Mitt?

High Capacity Magazines
Along with the miss-named assault weapon ban, Romney also continued to support a high capacity magazine ban, limiting Massachusetts owners to 10-round capacity magazines unless they were owned by the resident prior to Sept. 1994.

Of course, this ban, not unlike the assault weapon ban, does absolutely nothing other than limit options for law-abiding citizens when it comes to protecting themselves and their family. Criminals do what criminals do; they ignore the law. But Romney like many other anti-gun types, is a big fan of feel-good gun legislation.

A year ago I wrote how carrying 10 rounds in a self-defense pistol may not be enough. And I brought statistics with me.

In stressful shooting situations, most studies show “hit rates” of less than 50 percent. A New York Times article from Dec. 2007 noted the hit rate for law enforcement in the city was 17.4 percent in 2005 and 28.3 percent in 2006. Los Angeles law enforcement shot placement was better than New York’s in 2006, with a 40 percent hit rate. Keep in mind these are law enforcement officers, who partake in regular training.

Civilians would be taking a more defensive posture, but the stress level is still there. In a situation where multiple attackers invade a home or attack someone on the street, it would be very reasonable to assume one defending himself or his family may run out of ammunition quickly if they were limited to a ten round magazine capacity. Certainly home invasions or attacks by multiple gun-toting criminals are rare, but mass shootings like Columbine and Tucson are even more rare.

Combine low hit rates in stressful situations with the fact one, two, three or even four rounds that hit the aggressor may not stop the threat, and you have a strong case to completely avoid a magazine capacity limit.

So what say you Mitt?

Romney had no problem with the Brady Bill’s Five-Day waiting period
When running for US Senate in 1994, Romney was ambivalent concerning the Brady Bill’s five-day waiting period, which again does nothing to thwart criminals, rather it just puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens who want to have a chance to protect themselves. In a Boston Herald article on Aug. 1, 1994, Romney noted…

I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.

Governor, show me the “positive effect” in Massachusetts. It’s impossible to prove a negative of course, but if someone wanted to shoot someone, that makes them a criminal who can get a gun if they want. I’m not going to try to research if someone who was threatened had to wait five days and got killed or injured, simply because it would be a rare outlier. That said, if you felt threatened and took steps to install exterior lights, and a security system and locked your house but wanted to take the added step of having a firearm for protection, how is making a law-abiding person wait five days good for anything?

The criminal wouldn’t have to wait.

Massachusetts’ use of consumer protection regulations to regulate the firearm industry
It all started in 2000, and Mitt Romney did nothing to combat the stupid regulations mandated by the commonwealth’s attorney general. The requirement of a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect and a 10 pound trigger pull on pistols sold by dealers in Massachusetts after March of 2000 resulted in an “approved state list” of firearms.

Again, Romney was ambivalent to these rules that were not law, rather executive branch mandates. They still exist to this day.

The loaded chamber indicator gives some the false impression that if they look and don’t see the flag, the weapon must be unloaded. This “look to check” breaks one of the most important rules in gun handling; always assume the weapon is loaded. The proper way to check to see if a weapon is unloaded is a visual and physical check with the chamber open, and the magazine removed if applicable.

The magazine disconnect ensures the gun can not be fired – and you can not defend yourself – if there is a round in the chamber and the magazine is removed from the pistol grip. Sure, a magazine disconnect might avoid a negligent discharge, but if that does happen, you’ve broken at least two out of three (or four) primary rules; assuming the gun is unloaded, and you put your finger on the trigger. There is the argument that in a close-quarters fight for control of a pistol, one could hit the magazine release to render the weapon useless as a firearm. Then again, ask a cop if he’s ever drawn his pistol and had the magazine drop out by mistake simply because it was not seated properly or the mag release was inadvertently pushed. That could be a disaster.

A 10 pound trigger? Have you tried to pull the trigger on a double action revolver or semi-automatic pistol with a 10 pound trigger? I’m telling you, there will be a significant percentage of the population who would have a difficult time with such a high weight. They may not be able to get a round off in a self-defense situation, let alone put one on-target.

These mandates simply discourage manufactures from selling pistols in Massachusetts and increases the cost to buy and maintain self-defense firearms. Thanks a lot.

Permits for Residents and Non-Residents
Not too good here either. No need to go into details, but let’s say Romney was not out to support the concealed carry movement.

Massachusetts, like Connecticut, refuses to honor any other state carry permits. You have to get a non-resident permit, and that’s never been easy to do. Ask a state resident who lives east of Worcester how difficult it is to get a Class A license to carry concealed.

I won’t blame Romney about the more recent regulations put on non-residents who want a permit for to carry in Massachusetts. Let’s just say his ambivalence over the years clearly made it worse for non-residents.

So what say you Gov. Romney? Are you willing to have a real discussion about your support of the 2nd Amendment?

15 replies
  1. JBS
    JBS says:

    I have never liked Romney as a presidential candidate. Nor does the NRA.
    Perhaps Romney should go to Utah and commune with his brother Mormons. To say those citizens own firearms is like saying the Army has a few guns. Plus, their attitude toward questionable Second Amendment supporters is very clear, decidedly against those individuals. Clearly, Romney needs to attend a re-education class or two to get back to his roots.
    It’s amazing how the MSM (or LSM) will trumpet a liberal’s anti-gun stance yet candidate Romney

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    gets little media attention for his decidedly anti-gun stance. I think that the liberal jackal media doesn’t really want Americans to identify Romney as anti-gun. If more people knew what Romney’s positions were on the Second Amendment and citizen’s rights, they would have dumped him long ago. The media wants to have a GOP candidate most like their darling now occupying the WH.
    Romney is too liberal for even a centrist or moderate label.

  3. johnboy111
    johnboy111 says:

    I live in mass. we have Mitt..john Kerry..olver? and Brown..former swimmer Teddy and Barrnieeee franks…WE are doomed??who do I e-mail with my concerns??

  4. zedgar2
    zedgar2 says:

    Very fair criticism of Romney. But balance requires looking at Newt’s record as well. My understanding is that the gun lobby is still up in arms (no pun intended) about Newt’s gun control record. For example, see references the disaffection that the Georgia Gun Owners organization – with 6,000 members in Newt’s home state – have for Newt’s actual history on gun control. One could argue that Newt’s record is worse than Romney’s because he promised the gun lobby in courting their support that no gun-control legislationwould move in committee or on the House floor while he was Speaker.? Major promise broken?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Looks like Second Amendment supporters and gun-rights proponents have no candidate in this contest who will represent our interests. It’s a dilemma.
      Romney’s record is much worse. His public stances on Second Amendment issues are much more incendiary and much more leftist. His attitudes are very Democrat. If he gets the nomination, it will be tough to differentiate him from ?bama.
      I wish we had a dog in this fight we could call ours.

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    An armed society is a polite society.? Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.? -Robert A. Heinlein
    Maybe we should let Congresscritters carry when in session!

    • zedgar2
      zedgar2 says:

      Pretty nasty comment, actually, to insinuate that any supporter of Mitt Romney lacks intelligence – i.e., only those with less than 1/2 a brain could support Romney. Why would you denigrate anyone who supports Mitt in such a personal way? I would expect that from the Left – is that your persuasion? It’s certainly legitimate to criticize a candidate’s positions and record.? It’s unfair to use ad hominem attacks against a candidate. But it is quite reprehensible to throw ad hominem insults at supporters of a candidate. I like this board very much because the level of discussion is generally quite substantive. Let’s keep it that way, please. Thanks.

Comments are closed.