Posted on 02/06/2007 12:08:48 PM PST by 300magnum
NEWTOWN, Conn.—In response to New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's filing of a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission yesterday, indicating that he would enter the 2008 presidential race as a Republican, the firearms industry's trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), reminded America's sportsmen and gun-enthusiasts of the former mayor's record of hostility toward firearms and gun-owners.
"Recent remarks indicate the mayor is attempting to camouflage his record on guns – a political maneuver now common for politicians seeking national office," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
In June of 2000, then New York City Mayor Giuliani became the lone Republican mayor to sue members of the firearms industry as part of a wave of lawsuits that began in the late 1990's by major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and San Francisco that sought to hold firearms manufactures responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. The Giuliani lawsuit is still pending and being aggressively pursued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Giuliani strongly opposed legislation blocking suits like the one he filed against members of the firearms industry. In 2005, President Bush signed legislation into law that barred such lawsuits after Congress, by a broad bipartisan margin, passed the bill. During the debate in Congress the Giuliani lawsuit was specifically referred to as an example of the kind of "junk" lawsuit the law is intended to stop.
"Giuliani's lawsuit may have gained him praise in Gotham, but will surely handicap him in the rest of the country, particularly during the southern primaries," predicted Keane.
More recently Giuliani's campaign has flipped-flopped on whether he continues his longstanding support for restoring the Clinton-era federal ban on some semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic appearance. The so-called "assault weapons" ban sunset in 2004. Several studies including those by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control showed the ban had no impact on crime largely because the banned firearms were very rarely if ever used in crime. The ban had nothing to do with machine guns, which have remained heavily regulated since the early part of the last century.
According to the New York Post, Giuliani's political operative in New Hampshire, Wayne Semprini, "has been telling voters that the mayor will be an 'easy sell' - and that the ex-mayor 'satisfied' him that he won't support federal assault-weapons bans, as he has in the past." All the while Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani's top advisor, has been telling New Yorkers "the mayor's position on this [the assault weapons ban] has not changed."
Commenting on this equivocation, Keane added, "You can't pretend to be a supporter of sportsmen and gun-owners in New Hampshire when you tried to sue the firearms industry out of existence in New York. Other politicians learned the hard way that sportsmen and gun-owners are a well-informed and highly motivated voting bloc. Former President Clinton in his memoirs admitted the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House, and Senator Kerry's ill-fated goose hunt cooked his presidential aspirations in 2004."
Formed in 1961, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the trade association for the firearms industry. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
If you kill em here then you have future job opening for jobs that dead Americans can't do. I can understand some arguments for abortion but when it comes to partial birth abortions there is no argument for it that makes sense to me or the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
I think that most people that support illegal immigration want people in this country that they know will take well to do as I say and not as I do governments. No training required in servitude.
The Brady law.
A new record! 140 posts and none of the usual suspects (serial rudy fan club). Interesting.....must be looking for a new popularity poll.
"Perhaps it would be helpful in an honest debate to provide quotes that aren't quite so old. I'm sure many of us believed something ten years ago that we no longer believe in today."
Next time someone criticizes Senator Byrd for something that he said or did 60 years ago, I will look for you to jump up and defend him.
Luckily, nobody says much about things Byrd did 60 years ago. </sarc>
We are not considering the other politicians in New York to be the nominee for president for the GOP. We can only look at Rudy's actions and Rudy's previously stated views.
I think they realize a losing thread when they see one.
LOL
As in England the connected "upper class" asked for gun control not the average Citizen. They knew that it would not effect them. Why do any actors have cc permits while pharmacists don't? Money and connections. Wake Up!!
That's why it's so important to most American citizens and so frightening to politicans who lean toward despotism.
Here's one from yesterday. It tells me he'd have done nothing different in NY, he's support similar actions in other locales. He supports reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and supports the Brady Bill.
The Brady Bill and his track record in New York is not a 2nd amendment friendly platform.
HANNITY: The issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about mayor Rudy Giuliani New York city had some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns.GIULANI: I understand the second amendment. People have the right to bear arms. As mayor of New York I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging--
HANNITY: You inherited the gun laws in New York.
GIULIANI: Yeah. And I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide I think by 65, 70%. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City. So if you are talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities, making decisions. We do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIUILANI: Yeah. A place like New York that is densely populated or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem like a few cities are now. Thank goodness not New York but some other cities. Maybe you have one solution there and in other place more rural, more suburban, other issues you have a different set of rule.
HANNITY: Generally speaking do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady Bill on assault ban.
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. Because I thought it was necessary to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2000 murders or so we were looking at, 1800 to 2000 murders that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Read post 151, his comment from yesterday. He considers his actions reasonable and effective. Doesn't matter if he was solely responsible, he embraces them as part of his position on gun ownership.
I'm not trying to imply that "it doesn't matter" because it was 10 years ago. Like most people, I do want to know someone's past record. My point was that to keep the debate fair and honest, one must also include a candidates current viewpoints on the issues.
I am not for Rudy, nor am I against Rudy. I'm one of those people who wants to learn everything I can about all of the possible candidates before throwing my support behind them.
Thank you so much for that information, SJackson. I missed Hannity's interview with Giuliani.
The lawsuit does sound pretty bad. But I'd need to know more about it, and whether he still agrees with it, and if not, what changed his mind. In any case, we cannot expect perfection from our politicians on any issue. In fact, I'd say that on every issue but national security, we have no right to demand agreement with our views on ANY issue. What we need to look at is the totality of the candidate, incomparison with the alternatives. One major factor being his electability. We can't obsess about our favorite issues. Not in a presidential race, especially since the Rats are certain to nominate a member of the hard left.
This "great" lawyer/prosecutor forgot the "shall not be infringed" thingy at the end. With kerry it was called a flip-flop.
I repeat, there is a difference between the role of a big-city mayor and that of a president. Granted, an ideologue wouldn't see it that way, but no conservative/libertarian ideologue can be elected mayor of NYC, or (probably) president anymore.
Thanks again! I'll check it out. :)
Your wrong. THis is why they are changing the primary season to give CA more clout. Without CA he has no chance in the primaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.