![\"\"](\"https:\/\/monachuslex.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/Romney_NRA-300x197.jpeg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cDeadly assault weapons … are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n – Massachusetts\u00a0Governor Mitt Romney<\/p>\n As the Republican National Convention comes to a close, it is time for me to live up to the promise I made when I wrote about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama<\/a>. That promise was to give the Republican nominee the same skeptical scrutiny that I gave to President Obama. And just as in that previous article, I am limiting my discussion to gun rights issues only.<\/p>\n I think it is only fair to note that, going into this article, I had some preconceived notions. Surely whoever the GOP nominated would be a sympathetic figure from a gun rights perspective wouldn’t they? After all, isn’t the GOP the gun-rights party<\/a>? \u00a0Well as it turns out, maybe not if you are a Massachusetts republican.<\/p>\n In her speech at the RNC<\/a>, Ann Romney alluded to this, noting that \u201cYou may not agree with Mitt’s positions on issues or his politics. Massachusetts is only 13% Republican, so it’s not like that’s a shock.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n But wait … Is it really that bad? \u00a0What exactly has Mitt Romney said or done that could be construed as anti-gun?<\/p>\n Perhaps most widely reported is the claim that he signed an ‘assault weapons<\/a>‘ ban while Governor of Massachusetts. \u00a0In 2004 he signed into law S.2367 which has been reported to be a state version of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban. \u00a0Now … signing a bill banning\u00a0a large category of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15 which is one of the most popular rifles selling in America today, would definitely be a direct attack on the Second Amendment. \u00a0But is that actually what Governor Romney did?<\/p>\n Actually no. \u00a0Prior to S.2367, Massachusetts already had an ‘assault weapons’ ban in place. \u00a0S.2367, which cleaned up a number of aspects of Massachusetts’ draconian gun laws, simply updated the existing law to include the definition from the federal ban instead of merely incorporating it since the federal ban was slated to sunset. \u00a0The NRA goes into detail on their site<\/a> about why the bill was in fact a victory for Massachusetts gun owners.<\/p>\n However, Governor Romney sullied the signing of this bill by making the comment that I opened the article with in which he parroted the words of the anti-gun forces and demonized so-called\u00a0‘assault weapons.’ \u00a0He may have not signed a ban, but his words tell us that he probably would have signed such a ban if it were placed before him.<\/p>\n What else has he done? \u00a0In 2003, he signed a bill to increase firearms license fees from $25 to $100. \u00a0To be fair, he proposed that the fee be increased only to $75 and the legislature instead took it to $100. \u00a0But that still means he proposed a 300% increase in the cost to exercise what he has stated he believes to be a constitutional right. \u00a0And he ultimately signed a bill making the increase 400%. \u00a0This may seem trivial to many but it is a huge burden on those living in poverty. \u00a0For many working families, such a fee effectively denies them the right altogether.<\/p>\n Dan Gross,\u00a0<\/em>relatively new president of the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), had glowing words for Governor Romney when his record for gun control is compared to that of President Obama; \u00a0\u201cIn their time in office, I would say with a pretty strong degree of certainty that Romney did more [for gun control].\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Yet amazingly, in 2007 when speaking to the NRA via videotape, he made the astonishing claim that \u201cAs governor I worked closely with the NRA and The Gun Owners Action League \u00a0to advance legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state\u00a0… We made it easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n