The NRA’s Chris Cox interviewed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney at dailycaller.com, asking about all things firearm-related. Clearly, the governor knew his audience. And unlike some, he avoided pissing off an important constituency in the middle of a campaign. That’s a big ‘no’ on new regulation of gun shows. Gun owner licensing? Nyet. Federal gun registration? As if. Hunting on public lands? He’s for it. UN weapons treaty? After a rambling non sequitur on making this another American century, he’s agin’ it. The candidate, though, was much more concise about national reciprocity and a new assault weapons ban . . .

Cox: Would you support legislation to provide national reciprocity for Right-to-Carry permit holders so that they can protect themselves when they’re traveling outside their home states?

Gov. Romney: Absolutely. Fundamental rights don’t disappear when we cross state borders, and self-defense is a fundamental right.

And given his track record in the Bay State, Mitt’s apparently had a road to Damascus conversion on scary black rifles.

Cox: Would you support the reimposition of a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms incorrectly called “assault weapons?”

Gov. Romney: No. I do not support any additional laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Feel better?

Recommended For You

91 Responses to Romney: Yes on CCW National Reciprocity, No on AWB

  1. I recall some saying back in 2008 that four years of Obama would mean America ends. That was false and hyperbolic. I also recall 4 years ago people saying that a successful major terrorist attack would occur – well that was wrong too.
    Even under Obama nothing is going to change on gun laws. Plus Congress has more power than the President on these domestic issues.

    • A LOT has changed. The obamination has an anti-gun AG, and anti-gun head of ATF and 2 anti-gun supreme court justices which we will have to suffer with for the next 3-4 decades.

    • Sure congress has more power, except for when the supreme leader obama has a childish temper tantrum and decides to issue a secretary’s desk full of executive orders when he doesn’t get what he wants.

      • Bush had 288 EO’s in his two terms, 144 each. Obama has 128 and is on pace to have 144 for his first term, the same amount Bush had. All presidents in modern history do EO’s, either get over it, or convince your legislators to abolish the practice for all presidents (R or D)!

        • Is there some weird rule that they must issue 12 EOs a month? And if EOs exceed 13,000 now, who the hell passed so many?

        • So once again it’s “Obama, he’s no worse than Bush.” Honestly, I suspect he’d hoped for a better legacy than that.

        • Without getting into who is the lesser evil it’s important to remember both Bush and Obama are evil bastards. That hardly justifies support for a second Obama term. It also doesn’t justify a benign attitude regarding Obamas abuse of the constitutionally dubious practice of issuing executive orders as if he were some sort of elected dictator. I’m getting really tired of the partisan loyalists justifying their great and fearless leader by saying the other side does it too.
          Just a reminder to the Bush loyalists – He repeatedly expressed his support for another assault weapon/semi-auto ban while running for re-election in 2004. Luckily, Republicans in Congress were not so spectacularly stupid as to send him one to sign off on.

          Regarding EO’s, Congress can’t simply abolish the practice due to the separation of powers principle, so thats not really an option.

    • More importantly, if the voters re-elect Obama, that means they will also elect lots of Democrats to the House and Senate. If the Democrats occupy the White House and have majorities in the House and Senate, that will not bode well for firearms rights. Between a “lame duck” president (Obama would be in a second and final term), Feinstein’s announcement that she will introduce an “assault weapons” ban, and Democrat majorities, I’d say that anything is possible.

      We also have to seriously consider the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a very good chance that two more justices (in their 70s) will retire and the next president will be appointing replacements. Since the last two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions on firearms rights split on party lines, future decisions hang in the current imbalance — which could tip the other direction.

    • “Even under Obama nothing is going to change on gun laws.”

      Um, well, can we say that after a second-term-nothing-to-lose Obama? Not betting on that one.

    • +1

      I never can understand the constant partisan nitpicking on unfounded concerns, regardless of the party.

      And the D’s and R’s use it to their advantage too. Honestly, I don’t know many people, who when push comes to shove, fall inline with everything “their” party represents.

      Face it people. Mitt Romney is a New England Republican, which is about 15 steps to the left of a Mid western Democrat. And netiher Romney nor Obama are considered close friends of 2A.

      • I totally agree with you as long as you can cite Obama saying the same thing as Romney in this interview. Which he has not and will not. Obama vs. Bush is not relevant; we’re talking Obama vs. Romney on gun rights. Romney and Ryan are supporting the 2A during their campaign. Romney’s past is not perfect, but he is clearly making the 2A part of his campaign promises. What’s Obama doing to support the 2A?

    • But Ginsburg is likely going to retire soon—and Obama hasn’t exactly made pro-2A SCOTUS choices. Plus, there are other justices in their 70s, so they could DIE at any time, realistically.

      I’m not a huge Romney fan, but I’m going to vote for him this time–and hope the Libertarians get their act together for 2016.

    • I also recall 4 years ago people saying that a successful major terrorist attack would occur – well that was wrong too.

      Depends on how you define “major”. Were a lot of people killed in the embassy? No, but having diplomats murdered is pretty important.

    • Very short sighted response. The next President may have the ability to appoint up to 3 new supreme court justices. Do you really want to give an Obama court the ability to readdress the Heller and McDonald cases. Any gun rights supporter who isn’t solidly agianst Obama’s re-election is delusional.

      • Readdress Heller? The court has had a century to readdress the Slaughterhouse cases that, for a while, gutted the 14th Amendment, even as recently as McDonald v. Chicago. The Slaughterhouse cases (discussed extensively in Thomas’ concurrence in McDonald) are almost universally condemned as wrongly decided–yet the court has declined to revisit that issue, or even more, run from readdressing that issue. Heller will never be changed, IMO; the big fight will be how broadly its principles will be applied, specifically to carry outside the home. There are a slew of cases awaiting decision in the various courts of appeals, any one of which could reach the Court in the next year.

    • We had a couple of successful terrorist attacks on 9/11/2012. Couple of others: How about the Christmas bomber? Islamic terrorist gets on a plane and detonates a bomb over a major American city? Times square bomber. Guy detonates a car bomb in the heart of NYC…In both cases we were only saved by dumb luck and the incompetence of our enemies.
      America can end. The people of the US may still live on the geographic area known as the United States. The name may remain but the American character of rugged individualism is badly wounded and will die unless we act to save and preserve it. The tea party is a good sign that we are awakening and rediscovering.
      Obama may not be able to do it in one term, though he’s tried mightily to put us on course.
      I am an optimist. I think O is going to lose in an electoral college landslide.
      Stay thirsty my friends.

      • The Tea Party that was founded by Ron Paul supporters but was then hijacked by big-government, Bible-thumping, police-the-world neocons who helped Romney win the nomination over small-government constitutionalist Ron Paul? Yeah, awesome.

  2. Feel better?

    The question he needs to answer if he wants enthusiastic support from the 2nd Amendment community: Which laws, regulations, or executive orders related to firearms would you repeal or rescind if you were President?

    At this point, we’re just voting against Obama. Getting us to vote for him will require a promise to change the status quo- and if he makes it, he’d better deliver.

    • I set the bar a LOT lower. No new gun regs and National Reciprocity? Yes all day long. Conservative (pro-2A) Supreme Court nominee? OMG. Yes.

      • I’m not talking about just voting for the guy- he’s already got that. With carry reciprocity in the platform, I’m seriously considering donating.

        By ‘enthusiastic support’, I’m talking about becoming a volunteer for his campaign.

      • Why don’t you interview Gary Johnson? See what he has to say about gun laws. I bet his position is much more appealing to 2A supporters. And if he got elected, at least I’d sleep better knowing that it would be extremely unlikely that he’d change his views. Romney, on the other hand, will say anything to get elected, but who knows what he’s going to do once in office. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if this guy flip flops later on.

        • While I respect Gary Johnson very much, as a governor he isn’t running for one of the two major platforms. At this point yes one could do a write in or something along those lines, but I seriously doubt he would actually win.
          I would however wish he was a serious contender for Senate or House. Many of the smaller groups, like libertarians, Tea Party, or even Constitutional Conservatives who don’t agree with the Republican establishment line can make a real difference. Folks might vote for a grass roots guy on that level, but probably will go with GOP or DNC for the residential role. I am not saying this is a good thing, we have had three party races in the past.

        • What would you say is Mr. Johnson’s likelihood of beating the incumbent in enough states to win the electoral college?

          While it’s nice that he may be more favorable of the 2A than Romney, he had his chance in the race for the Republican nomination and lost.

        • He’s going to be on the ballot in all 50 states as Libertarian. He does not get the same recognition as Romney because he’s not a corporate sellout, he doesn’t bow down to special interest. Sure, I agree that Romney is better than Obama, but he’s not that much better.

          I’m sure Johnson would be happy to give TTAG an interview, why not reach out to him?

        • Because Johnson isn’t going to win and this election is too important to waste effort that is needed to defeat barry and crowd.

  3. Will Mitt initiate stronger QC standards for gun makers and demand greater accuracy from manufacturers?
    Will Mitt promise to ban the Freedom Group as a monopoly dedicated to destroying once-great gun makers such as Remington and Marlin?
    Will Mitt call for the creation of high school shooting ranges?
    Will Mitt lower the high water rates in water-abundant Portland?

    • Yes. But it’s the only process we have. As I’ve stated here before, my rights as an American aren’t set aside because of the state I live in. Good to see a candidate agree with me. We need federal level shall issue or constitutional carry.

    • “It” washes off, it’s the darn smell that lingers. My single most important worry is who is going to appoint the next one or two supreme court justices? That is pretty much the driving force in who I am voting for. Most everything else can easily be undone, but an appointment to the supreme court lasts long after the appointing president is gone.

      • bontai Joe: Yeah, I feel the same way about the SC. I’m sure there are quite a few others who are going down that road, as well.

  4. yeah, because he hasn’t said things simply out of political expediency before. you can totally trust him! the 500+ documented lies he’s told in the past month? that’s okay, because now he says he’s pro 2A!

  5. If he is against a AWB, then why did he sign one in to law as governor, and say “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts…. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

    • He probably ‘evolved’ on this issue. Which means if he become president he could ‘evolve’ again a different direction. ;^)

    • Bingo! You win the prize Matt.

      Politicians desperate to get elected will say or do almost anything to pander to each and every group they address. Once in office however, we get the real man behind the mask. By then of course, it’s too late.

      • Thanks for the link Ralph but with all due respect it isn’t very comforting and the quote below shows why.

        “Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.”

        So Matts quote is correct and the quote from GOAL shows two distressing facts about Obamney – First, he thought he was signing an Assault Weapons Ban, and Second, he doesn’t have a clue about what he’s signing!

      • Thanks for posting that link! That answers a lot of questions for me, and makes me feel better about my decision on who to vote for. Most appreciated!

      • Then I should move there and start a even more radical group.

        And if it was not a extension of a AWB, then why did he say what did?

    • When he comes out and condemns his earlier choice for the MA AWB, then he might have some credibility.

      He must admit his failures before he can overcome them.

    • Perhaps there has been a genuine reassessment of his stance. The year after he signed the ban he declared a “Right to Bear Arms Day”, and joined the NRA. Since that time he has been vocal in his support and backed it with action by signing legislation requested by gun owners that cut red tape. Unless you believe it is impossible for people to change, there is evidence he has. The toughest part of change is getting people to believe that you have.

    • He didn’t sign an “assault weapon” ban. In fact Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts claims he hasn’t signed any bad gun legislation. The state didn’t have a sunset clause like the federal AWB. It was signed before he came into office, by a previous governor, and so the law stands. Romney signed a reform bill as explained by both GOAL and the NRA-ILA. The state is blue and it’s going to take a lot to get rid of it.

  6. I remember seeing a news byte from 2008 when Mitt was campaigning, a WWII Vet asked him about his stance on the second amendment. Mitt gave him the “I have no problem with hunting” line completely sidestepping his question. The look of degust was very evident on the old gentlemen’s face, that stuck with me and I was happy to see John McCain win in the Republican run off.

    I’m relieved that he’s seeing things a little more clearly now.

    • I’m relieved that he’s seeing things a little more clearly now.

      Yep that’s the more likely option with a politician: “He changed his world view”, not “He’s pandering”.

        • No thanks. I like the states running it as it is now. Don’t like it? Fix your state or move. Don’t complain.

          Honestly, how can anyone think that the same FedGov that gives us the ATF can possibly get this right?

          What if NJ lobbyists say “OK, but 10 round mags and no hollowpoints”. Still want that reciprocity when it means your free state now looks like NJ? No thank you.

  7. And Dan, Robert, whomever, what HAS happened to the National CC Reciprocity bill passed by the house? Is it stuck in some obscure sub committee in the Senate, and who can we contact to find out it’s whereabouts and how to get it to a vote before November!

    • Last I heard, DiFi asked for and got a favor from the Senate Majority Leader Reid to NOT assign the bill to committee to ensure that no action could be taken on it. The bill is dead this session. It will not come up again before the election. Why? Because DiFi hates guns and is doing everything she can to kill it, but knows that there are enough votes to pass it if it gets before the Senate.

      • And this is my biggest objection to barry. As long as he sits in the ovaL office people like difi are given more voice than they should have. Romney ain’t perfect but the people that will have his ear are better for gun rights than the clintons or schumer or difi.

  8. This is election it’s a choice between a politician who will go with the flow and an ideologue who hates our guts. I prefer wishy-washy over someone who is dedicated to seeing me defenseless. Doesn’t mean I like wishy-washy, but there you have it.

    • Right. Whatever qualms we might have about Romney, he’s the nominee now and so anyone opposing Obama has to stop thinking about what could have been and make up his mind to vote. Dammit.

  9. Sure whatever Willard.

    This is what Mitt thinks now. What he thought earlier was a mistake, until it becomes popular again, then he will change his position. Again.

    Flip-flop, flip-flop. Bla bla bla bla.

    I guess he is better than Obama on RKBA. Sort of. For now.

    • I think Mitt is just wishy-washy enough that he will bend to the will of whoever elected him. Since Republicans nationwide tend to be strongly pro-2A(with some exceptions, of course), I don’t see Mitt bucking a Republican Congress on any pro-2A bills.

      • See, that’s the biggest problem I have with Romeny. The President to be successful must be an effective leader. Remember the last time we had a leader who was wishy washy? (His name was Jimmy Carter.) What did that get us? In this day and age, can we afford a President who won’t say what his plans are for the country or the world, instead saying “look to our principles”? Whatever that means. Particularly for a candidate whose principles change with the weather. Obama crystalized my thinking about Romney just the other day: “He shoots first and aims later.” That to me is very scary.

        • All Presidents are wishy washy on some things. I agree that Romeny is a little wishy washy on 2a issues. Wereas Obama seems to hate guns just not bad enough to risk huge Democate losses to add new restrictions. The Democates still remember the beating they took after the 1996 Gun Ban.

          Thanks
          Robert

  10. The discussion on “another American Century” was hardly a non sequitur. A major approach to destroying the Bill of Rights is through international treaties – including 2A and 1A. See, e.g., http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/prof-peter-spiro-on-why-hate-speech-should-be-banned-and-on-how-it-might-be-done/
    and http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/former-yale-dean-harold-koh-now-attorney-advisor-at-the-state-department-on/

    So yes, Romney knew exactly what he was talking about, and basically said, “Let the rest of the world take a running jump at itself. This is the USA, and we have our own Constitution. To hell with the UN, the EU, and their entire cohort.”

    This is extremely important as gun-control issues, hate-speech issues, and climate issues are pushed on us by internationalists.

  11. NO, I don’t feel better because he’s flipped and flopped on this in the past just as he flips and flops on everything else and then just straight up misquotes our current president about the Libyan attack on our Embassy and then actually tries to DEFEND after he knows he messed up? There’s honor is saying, “I’m sorry, I was mistaken” it turns into lie if you try to defend it because you know you were wrong. I think this man is dangerous, more dangerous than Obama, how’s this tool supposed to sit across the table from Dictators and Prime Ministers the world over? He can’t even keep his own words straight.

  12. I don’t understand people bringing up Mitt’s past record and statements so much. Yes,he said before he’d sign a new AWB. Yes, he did one when he was in office before.

    Obama supporters and the media (distinction without a difference?) are quick to point out Romney’s changes in promises, but they leave out a key factor: As a politician, you promise what you think will get you votes. Then you do it, in Mitt’s case (check his backstory, you’ll find he made pretty good on all his campaign promises before).

    Obama, on the other hand, has also changed his views on…well, pretty much everything. The difference was he promised one thing, got elected, and then changed his views. I don’t have a problem with elected officials flip-flopping on issues before they’re elected. That’s politics and, since politicians are supposed to represent the wishes of their public, it shows that politician is willing to listen to what the people want. The problem comes with going back on your promises after you’re elected. That’s called lying, mr. president.

    Mitt’s promises and statements from 2008 are, to me, irrelevant. He didn’t get elected, so he’s not obligated to stand by those things. He just damn well better stick to his current promises after he’s elected.

    • I don’t understand people bringing up Mitt’s past record and statements so much… As a politician, you promise what you think will get you votes.

      Because what if it takes for him to get re-elected, keep his approval rating up, not get impeached over another issue, or get other people he likes electected is a new AWB? It demonstrates that he lacks integrity.

      And since we are ignoring prior records, does that mean we should allow convicted felons to run for POTUS too?

      • Of course not. Criminal record vs. voting record, totally different. In most cases.

        Using the AWB example you gave, you’re right. Integrity would be mean Romney not getting high approval ratings or getting others re-elected because he sticks to his promise to not support another AWB. In the context of my comment below, if Mitt were running for a second term in the future I think he can change his promises. My issue is not changing promises from campaign to campaign, my issue is promising one thing during a campaign in order to get elected and then turn around and do what you want.

        So the question becomes, do we vote for the guy who’s proven he doesn’t have integrity, or do we give a new guy a chance to prove he does?

    • TR, I know you mean well but you suffer from a very common and dangerous propensity among voters – excusing politicians lies, deceptions and pandering because “That’s politics”. It is politics but that doesn’t justify the bastards behavior. Ask yourself this question – is there any other group of people to which you apply the same low standard of conduct? Probably not.
      There is no reason to treat politicians any differently that used car salesman, mortgage bankers or stock brokers. If they deceive or manipulate for self serving reasons it means they can’t be trusted. Giving power to people who can’t be trusted is dangerous in the long run even if it provides certain short term benefits.

      • Looking back at my previous comment, I understand how my meaning could be misunderstood. I wasn’t excusing lying or pandering- they are what they are and are disgusting. My point was that in American politics, we don’t say, “I don’t believe in gun control, but it’s what the voters want so I’ll promise gun control.”
        We tend to judge people and vote for them based on their beliefs. Think a bout a politician who was trying to run on a republican ticket who said, “I am pro-choice but I promise I won’t push that agenda because it’s not what you want.” It would never happen. To get votes that person has to state it as their belief. We make promises through stating that we believe something. So I get the integrity thing, but I also think that the system forces flip-flopping. So when a candidate first runs for office, I tend to take their stated beliefs at face-value: Romney probably believes in gun control to some extent. When they’re running a second time, I tend to read “I believe” as “I promise to support”. Does that illustrate my meaning a bit more clearly?

  13. Wow, Romney gets the nomination for President as a Republican and all of a sudden he becomes a conservative. It’s a miracle…or a bunch of lies. I highly doubt that this man has changed his eays, which are to go whichever direction the poliical wind blows. No, Romney will not get my vote, my principles mean too much to me. Gary Johnson has earned my vote.

  14. When I read the post title “no on AWB” I first thought “no on Average White Band?”
    I had to shift gears and remind myself I was on a gun blog.

    • Johnson will be on no less than 47 state ballots (would have been all 50 if not for Romney’s lawyers) and if you were at all involved in the poliical process and chose to be an informed voter, you would know that you have more than just two corrupt parties to choose from. But hey, it’s ok, keep voting for the same old same old while ridiculing that which you do not understand (not a good trait) all the while things get worse and worse thanks to those of you who keep the status quo.

    • Jesse Ventura mentioned on Alex Jones’ show that he is going to run as an Independent in 2016 if he gets ballot access in all 50 states. I think I’ll vote for him. A Libertarian, ex-Navy UDT, ex-pro wrestler? “I ain’t got time to bleed” could be his campaign slogan.

      The debates would be EPIC.

  15. Regardless of his answers, come the morning of Nov 7, one of two guys will be the president come Jan 20, 2013. Who will be better?

  16. So….I’m supposed to vote for Romney, who passed an AWB in his state and created a nightmare of “safety” requirements while voicing that there was no need for “assault weapons” or concealed pistols as a Gov. because he claims that as a President, he’ll do the opposite?

    Sorry – Romney’s positions are too flip floppy for my liking. He’s pulled 180s on all of his positions he supported as Gov. Makes you wonder why, if not for ideological reasons, he really wants to be president (put plainly – does he want to be president so he can literally hand the country over to his friends).

    • Candidate Romney is against gun control today, but if a President Romney saw that gun control could help his re-election, he would be on it like a rat on a Cheet-O.

  17. He’s a politician. I don’t know much about Mass but I’ve heard noything but bad things when it comes to guns. I hope they got the interview on video so they can play it back when he flips.

  18. Will Mitt call for the re-creation of the militias?
    Will Mitt abolish the US Dept of Education and the Federal Reserve?
    Will Mitt bring back the American Diner?
    Will Mitt demand that corn-dogs are made from real meat and real corn?

  19. “Feel better?”

    No.
    Gary Johnson 2012.
    Watch his speech from Paul Fest.
    And Ben Swann’s “DNC Runs Over Delegates With Scripted Platform Vote”

  20. Don’t forget as we go down memory lane Bill Clinton was a NRA supporter until he was elected. As was Bush Sr. Bush Sr executive ordered non sporting import ban in 89. But when it comes down to it the R’s have treated us much better than the D’s in the last 20 years. I don’t hear any R’s wanting to screw us like Fienstein, Schumer, or Lautenburg, Murray, Pelosi, and the list goes on. I don’t particularly care for either party, but BO will do anything he thinks he can get away with under or above the RADAR. Just my 2c. Apologize for the Senators name spellings.
    Vote your guns.

  21. Wow this is the problem here, we’ve decided to settle on what our rights should be…. How about a national campaign on the right to bear (not keep!) arms… We should be allowed to carry concealed or open without having to apply for it regardless of the state, screw national permits or applications… Our constitutional rights have already been trampled on the first time we had to submit fingerprints and wait for a card saying we had the right to bear arms that God gave us.

  22. The man is transparent. I want to know what he did, not what he says–and what he did was dismal for gun owners.

    “Voting for my guns” when the GOP has turned into the anti-science, anti-progress, anti-civil rights, anti-freedom–dare I say it, anti-American choice for government is unconscionable. They’ll protect my Bill of Rights freedoms while it’s politically convenient, until there’s an attempt on their life (see: Reagan) or as a “fix” for terrorism (see: Bush). There is not a doubt, and history is my proof, that if it was politically expedient for Romney he would pass the next AWB without issue. If a Democrat had his history and tried to get a life membership at the NRA, they would turn him down.

    I’m going to stick with the philosophy of “vote considering all the issues”, then seek to educate and work with activism to further the issues that matter to me as an individual. Gun rights groups and activists have done far more for me than any politician ever has. Sure, the politician is the vehicle to make these changes, but it’s the groups the provide the direction. Unfortunately it seems that some (ok, one) group has lost its focus and could use new leadership. Maybe gun owners should focus their attention on that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *