Romney signed Assault weapons ban. (Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, leader)

[James420]

Why was it ok for Romney to sign an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts? But if a democrat did it, they would be vilified?

[Glitch]

Romney was, and still is, vilified for his anti-gun positions. So is Giuliani, and every other Republican that supports gun-control. It is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans ardently support the Second Amendment, and both Democrats and Republicans ardently oppose the Second Amendment.

[Jermaine88]

Originally Posted by James420

Why was it ok for Romney to sign an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts? But if a democrat did it, they would be vilified?

Good question.

I kept saying this doing the election. If anyone was interested in taking your guns it would have been Romney.
Obama had a super majority at one point, (and citizens were so hyped up on the hope and change koolaid at the beginning of his presidency), but he had made no effort to do so.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Jermaine88

Good question.

I kept saying this doing the election. If anyone was interested in taking your guns it would have been Romney.
Obama had a super majority at one point, (and citizens were so hyped up on the hope and change koolaid at the beginning of his presidency), but he had made no effort to do so.

Of course he did, but it blew up in his face. It was called "Operation Fast & Furious." Maybe you heard of it.

[Bulldogdad]

Life is always a choice of the less of two evils when it comes to selecting leaders.

Grow up and welcome to big boy politics.

[Frank Merton]

Maybe Romney would have been the better man.

[Frank Merton]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Life is always a choice of the less of two evils when it comes to selecting leaders.

Grow up and welcome to big boy politics.

That isn't really big boy politics, but big party politics.

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by James420

Why was it ok for Romney to sign an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts? But if a democrat did it, they would be vilified?

Enacted in 2004 (the federal ban was sunsetting), the Massachusetts state ban was constitutional (federally) because then, the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable upon the states. Romney put together a coalition of pro-gun and pro-control folks and they came up with a law that was compatible with the Massachusetts constitution. The federal 2nd Amendment had no influence or impact on the Massachusetts law. It fails that test now (post McDonald -2010) and if challenged, would probably be struck down.

There are very wide swaths of state gun control laws on very infirm ground after Heller (invalidating Tot and Cases which created the "state's right" / "militia right" / "collective right" perversions in federal law in 1942) and McDonald.

The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was federally unconstitutional in two ways.

Primarily, because no power was ever granted to the federal government to write such a law impacting the personal arms of the private citizen. The law was an exercise of extra-constitutional, illegitimate legislative power under the commerce clause.

Secondly, the weapons commonly defined as "Assault Weapons" are the type of arm that, under the criteria recognized and enforced by SCOTUS, enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment.

Such a ban would not pass muster now and would be challenged and struck down before it ever became effective.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Frank Merton

That isn't really big boy politics, but big party politics.

Same thing.

[freightshaker]

Romney once again was the lesser of two evils.. I didn't support his firearms position, but Obama has made his position well known as well and I don't like it either.. The reason I voted Romney is because I cannot support Obamas domestic or foreign policy positions.. My vote had nothing to do with firearms or the 2nd ammendment.