Romney claims many Aurora weapons were illegal

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks about the shootings in Colorado at an event in Bow, N.H., Friday, July 20, 2012.

/ Evan Vucci

(CBS News) In an interview with NBC News Wednesday, Mitt Romney said "many" of the weapons used in the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting were obtained illegally.

"Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

The guns used in the attacks were purchased legally between May 22 and July 6 at three Colorado gun stores, according to officials. "We're told the weapons he used were legal. And the ammunition he purchased over the internet was not prohibited," reports CBS News' Bob Orr.

The bombs and other explosive devices set as booby traps in alleged shooter James Holmes' apartment appear not to have been legal, but they were not used in the initial attack and did not cause fatalities.

(Romney called for unity following the shooting in Aurora, Colo., last week.)

The comment marks Romney's second statement on the tragedy, in which 12 people were killed and 58 injured. On Monday, he told CNBC that he did not believe stricter gun laws could have averted this type of tragedy.

"There are - were, of course, very stringent laws which existed in Aurora, Colorado," said Romney, who signed into law an assault weapons ban as Massachusetts governor in 2004.

What constitutes "stringent" is open to interpretation. But it appears that Holmes had a relatively easy time legally obtaining the assault weapon, other guns and ammunition he allegedly used in the murders. Guns do not need to be registered in Colorado, they can be carried openly without a permit, and government and law enforcement are barred from building a database of gun owners.

In addition, International Business Times reports, Aurora could not have strengthened its gun laws even if it wanted to. Under state law, Aurora and other municipalities are explicitly prohibited from enacting "an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase or possess under state or federal law."

[churchstate]

What happened to the separation of Church and State? Romney seems a person who lacks boundaries when it comes to proselytizing the teachings of his Latter Day Saints (LDS) faith. I was troubled by Romney's speech (reciting passes from the Book of Mormon, and the King James Bible), to the victims of the Colorado Shooting. Is this what the American public is to expect from Romney in the future as the President of the United States and the leader of the country who will frequently address the public? Romney's behavior during this situation reassures me he is not the man to lead this country. If he is one who cannot restrain himself from spewing the teachings of his faith, perhaps he is best suited to remain in a religious leadership position for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - The Mormons.

[Pathmandan]

The 2nd amendment wasn't written for sporting or hunting. It was to defend ourselves against the government. Yes, when the constitution was written guns only fired one bullet at a time. But then so did the government's firearms. Back then the governments had cannons, and so did the citizens.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

[45StayAlive]

Here's something I read that I think makes some great points:

"With all this talk about how the Aurora, Colorado shooter purchased "thousands of rounds of ammunition" I find it interesting that none of the media outlets have bothered to point out that the spatial volume, let alone the weight of 6,000 rounds of ammunition would be far more than any shooter could carry on his person. It wouldn't matter if the shooter had purchased six million rounds of ammunition - he would still have been limited physically to carrying a few hundred at most.

And ironically, it is actually a good thing that out of ignorance, the shooter chose that 100-round drum magazine. No knowledgeable person or agency uses such gimmicks. They are highly unreliable and almost always jam (as did his, saving many, many lives). Normal, reliable 30 (or 20, 10 or 5) round magazines can be changed out by a competent shooter in about one second, leaving virtually no break in sustained firepower, even with a 5-round match competition magazine. So attempting to limit "high capacity" magazines won't really accomplish anything.

The way many people concentrate on the guns and the ammo as being the problem amazes me. Do these same people blame pens for misspelled words? We need to address the problem of mental illness. That is the underlying cause for these events in my opinion. This shooting happened almost on the one year anniversary of the terrible shooting/bombing in Norway where 77 people were killed - 69 of them were shooting victims. Norway has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world. Making weapons illegal is like making alcohol and drugs illegal - we all know how hard it is for a person who wants it to get weed...

It's too bad the theater chose to post signs banning honest, law abiding citizens from carrying defensive weapons in the place - the people in that stadium-style seating were like ducks in a shooting gallery for the murderer. But it could have worked the other way as well. Almost every person in that stadium-style seating area had a clear view of the murderer standing right in front of them, and therefore a clear shot at him as well - had some of them been armed. I wonder how things would have turned out if there was not one armed citizen, but say, five, or six, or ten armed citizens in that audience all shooting at the murderer's face?

Stay safe."

[courtneygo]

Doesn't it seem obvious that he was talking about the explosives?

[Goldy_Lox]

Of course. You are right. "... it was illegal for him to have many of those things already,"
But Obama's campaign HQ (CBS) is not permitted to point this out. Instead the operative (writer) is required to make it appear that Romney was incorrectly talking about legal weapons and ammunition!

[Goldy_Lox]

Of course. You are right. "... it was illegal for him to have many of those things already,"
But Obama's campaign HQ (CBS) is not permitted to point this out. Instead the operative (writer) is required to make it appear that Romney was incorrectly talking about legal weapons and ammunition!

[TimeToEvolve]

RobMe is a complete moron whose brains has been pickled by too much rape and pillage of his fellow Americans and others around the world. I think his mess is beyond mere lying, he actually thinks that whatever he thinks is right. This is one scary nut job and I can't believe he could even sniff an elected office. Must be the money.

[xxxxxxxx9]

Romney is a fine example of an ID 10 T error.

[Lindag20]

Strange comment from Romney since the officials and the news media had reported from the get-go that the guns and ammo had been purchased LEGALLY by Holmes. Doesn't he even keep up with the news? I can understand him not knowing the gun laws in a state that he doesn't live in, but you'd think he'd listen to or read the news before opening his mouth.

[occupy_cbs]

"Romney claims many Aurora weapons were illegal"

"There are - were, of course, very stringent laws which existed in Aurora, Colorado," said Romney.




Wrong mitt, but don't let the TRUTH get in the way of a good story!

The guns used in the attacks were purchased legally at three Colorado gun stores, according to officials, and the ammunition he purchased over the internet was not prohibited.

Aurora and other municipalities are explicitly prohibited from enacting "an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase or possess under state or federal law."

It appears that willard romney knows less about U.S. gun laws than the average citizen, but certainly doesn't want to enrage the NRA!

[marychgo]

Is there NO way to find some common ground here?

I support SOME gun control laws, but I have NO desire to take away any law-abiding American's pistols, revolvers, rifles, or shotguns.

If you live in a place that allows concealed-carry, I'm fine with your taking advantage of that, but please stop telling me that I don't have the right to oppose concealed-carry where I live.

I definitely want thorough security checks for all gun purchases, INCLUDING at gun shows and person-to-person sales. I want EVERY state to cooperate fully with the FBI screening system, including full reporting on people with mental health issues and people with domestic violence convictions (or plea bargains).

As for technology, I question why any hunter, hobbyist, or collector NEEDS to own a military-style weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, or an ammunition receptacle with more than 10 or 12 projectiles. I'll LISTEN to explanations on why restricting some or all of those items would violate your Second Amendment rights, but I'll be listening with a good deal of skepticism, just as I would if you argued that the Second Amendment protects your right to own a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a surface-to-air missile, or a thermonuclear bomb.

NO ONE -- among gun-control supporters or in the Democratic Party or in the Obama administration -- is trying to take away your guns! What some of us would LIKE to do is to make it just a little tougher for someone like Holmes or Loughner (or dozens of others over the years) to end so many young and rich and fruitful lives simply because their own lives were falling apart....

[occupy_cbs]

"As for technology, I question why any hunter, hobbyist, or collector NEEDS to own a military-style weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, or an ammunition receptacle with more than 10 or 12 projectiles."



Yes, with a few posters screeching the need for AK-47's or AR-15's in their hunting escapades, I still wonder just how many states allow such weapons that are illegal in most states for hunting? Not only is the .223 cal. of the AR-15 illegal in most states for big game due to its size, legal hunting rifles usually cannot hold in the magazine and chamber the number of rounds afforded to "assault riles".

[kjohns2001]

It is just sad that so many people can't take 20 minutes out of their busy little lives to search the facts about purchasing firearms in America. Everyone, except for those doing person to person sales or giving as a gift, who purchases a firearm of any kind has to have a national data check through the ATF and E certifying that they have NO criminal record or record of having been found to be mentally ill. If not found in the database then the sale is approved.

Also, it is an easy to find fact that there are MILLIONS of legal firearm owners in America. Why should millions of legal gun owners be penalized for the bad acts of ONE individual? It makes no sense whatsoever to deny millions of people their second amendment right to keep and bear arms just because one person committed a crime. Talk about over kill! If the radical anti-gun zealots would punish the criminal instead of the innocent law abiding gun owners this would be a better country.

[marychgo]

I'm just wondering why hundreds of thousands or even millions of eligible American voters should be prevented from voting in November because they lack state-issued photo ID cards whose only justification is to prevent in-person voter fraud, a crime that no one seems to be able to prove occurs more than a handful of times in any given election cycle.