Scott Brown reverses his position, now supports federal assault weapons ban

Fascinating.

Senator Scott Brown has reversed his position after the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school and now says he supports a federal assault weapons ban.

“What happened in Newtown where those children were subject to that level of violence is beyond my comprehension,” Brown said in an interview today with the Springfield Republican newspaper. “As a state legislator in Massachusetts I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately, they have not and innocent people are being killed. As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts.”

Brown had long said he opposed any new federal restrictions on guns and believed the issue was best left up to the states. He reiterated his opposition to tighter federal gun laws after previous attacks at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater and at US Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s meet-and-greet with constituents in Tucson, Ariz.

“I’m not in favor of doing any additional federal regulations relating to any type of weapons or federal gun changes,” Brown told the Globe shortly after the Tucson attack last year. “I feel it should be left up to the states.”

First, let’s state the obvious: Senator Brown is, for whatever reason, now on the correct side of this issue, and bravo to him for getting there.  We need all the votes we can get, and it’s heartening to see Republicans as well as conservative Democrats being willing to reconsider previously-held positions.

Now, it must also be said that it’s difficult to take Brown’s explanation at face value.  He cannot possibly have seriously thought that the best way to get assault weapons banned across the country was to have relatively liberal states like MA enact state-level bans and then figure that conservative, much more pro-gun states would follow suit.  Obviously, that was never going to happen.  So there’s something else afoot here.  Maybe it’s as simple as seeing Newtown as a game-changer that demands federal action; maybe it’s more complicated with considerations of a possible Senate race playing a role.  But whatever got Brown to where he is now on this issue, it’s an improvement over where he was before, and that’s a good thing.



Discuss

17 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. "We need all the votes we can get...."

    Let’s hope we never need his votes ever again.

  2. Typical Brown, Who Won't Be able to vote on weapons ban

    Brown is always there for us when we don’t need him.

  3. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it ...

    Sounds like Mr. Brown is attempting to follow in the footsteps of Mitt Romney.

    Perhaps he’s still following the counsel of Eric Etch-A-Sketch Fehrnstrom.

  4. Yes, yes,

    you dyed-in-the-wool cynics, you’re all correct. :) But this really is a good thing despite all of that. For one, as john points out, it’s possible (though not desirable) that Brown will indeed have a vote in the future on this issue. For another, it seems very likely that Brown will at least be running for Senate fairly soon – hopefully in a hotly-contested primary with Bill Weld and maybe a few other characters. It will be very good to have someone in that crowd arguing in favor of the ban.

  5. Surprised by the reasoning.

    “As a state legislator in Massachusetts I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately, they have not and innocent people are being killed.

    Couldn’t that apply to other things?

    “As a state legislator in Massachusetts I supported mandated health insurance thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately, they have not and people are being hurt.

  6. The political cynic in me

    sees this as little more than an attempt to take a position on the correct side of an issue for campaign issues only. He could never live down being against an anti federal assault weapons ban in the light of the current climate. It would be nice if his feelings were genuine, unfortunately, I can’t trust him.

    • Should he run

      We should remind everyone in Massachusetts they can’t trust him either. Today he says this, but this year he was the biggest recipient of Congressional campaign contributions from the NRA.

  7. Seems a tad disingenuous,

    and just very hard to believe anything he says after recent campaign and his empty rhetoric in general..

  8. Understatment of the Year nominee?

    maybe it’s more complicated with considerations of a possible Senate race playing a role

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thu 24 Jul 12:57 PM