There is a story making the rounds about how Romney did not pardon any criminal convictions as Governor of MA. Of course, we can all agree that refraining from issuing pardons at all is much preferred to issuing them to cronie buddies. The thrust of this article though is that Romney should have at least pardoned a particular Iraq Veteran who intentionally shot another kid when he was 13 years old. Apparently, he has since lived a completely law abiding life since and served honorably in the military. I don't doubt that he has. What I find curious is that there is little detail about the juvenile conviction. I want to know things like, why did he shoot the other kid? How old was the other kid? What was his relationship to the other kid?


Obviously, one can imagine various degrees of ill intent in this crime. One thing is for sure, he intentionally shot another kid with a dangerous weapon that could have caused serious injury. So, should it be pardoned? He can already have his record sealed and except for inquiries by law enforcement, he can say he has no record. But the article eludes to the fact that this individual wants to become a police officer.

As Governor, Romney set up guidelines for pardons. "The guidelines [state] that pardons will rarely be issued for the purpose of obtaining a firearm if the person had been convicted of a crime involving a firearm." Maybe that is what is going on here. Either way, it seems that one can't really fault Governor Romney for deciding not to overturn the judiciary and the legislature, even if he had the power to do do. MA has decided that anyone adjudicated a delinquient child for the commission of a violent felony is not to have a firearm permit. It seems reaonable to me that society might decide that people who commit violent felonies at any age shouldn't be given firearms permits. Society has to make those judgment calls about people. If people don't like the law, then change it.