Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[Jim Robinson]

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?

GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

So if you're 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. After all, 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?

GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, 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, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.

HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?

GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

[Titan Magroyne]

It was a rhetorical question, but yeah, I know what you mean. On a purely intellectual level I know their motivation, but I still can't understand the average Joes willfully ignoring what should be an immediate gut reaction to the first whiff of forcible disarmament.

[OMalley]

Im begining to notice that:)

[Dave S]

So tanks and howitzers are okay?

Don't see a problem if the owner has enough land to safely enjoy them. Plus, it's kinda hard to hold up a liquor store with a howitzer.,/i>

But some nut case with a tank or howitzer could do a lot of damage before you could call in an air strike to stop him. The local police arent going to have much luck against the tank. Maybe a little more so against the howitzer since it would be hard to defend one position with one nut targeting and loading as swat approaches from multiple directions.

[dirtboy]

But some nut case with a tank or howitzer could do a lot of damage before you could call in an air strike to stop him.

I can think of one time I've seen on TV a nut with a tank. Nuts with knives are a far greater danger, but I don't want to ban knives.

[Delphinium]

FR is a good place to go when it's cold out side.

Its one of the best avenues for some of us to fight liberals since not many live around us.

Can you imagine having these arguments about the 2nd amendment in Wyoming?

Even the liberals pretend to love guns here.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Well, you shouldn't make sweeping statements, then, about how Rudy didn't take guns away."

So Rudy sent the police to your door, asking for your guns? You received a letter in the mail stating that you have three shotguns, a 45 auto, two rifles and if you do not bring them in within 24 hours you are going to jail? Was his secret police checking through your permits? Actually that one might be accurate.

Taking your guns away means that, coming to your door and taking your guns away. I don't think he did that. Then again, maybe he did.

What I do know is the day someone shows up at my door and asks for my gun is the day I shoot someone. Because it will be on that day that America becomes a police state. And I would be willing to bet that it is a Democrat administration that does this.

[ctdonath2]

There is nothing inherent in this remark by Rudy counter to Second Amendment issues as they now exist in law and practice.

Context is crucial.

There ARE restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms. These have been adjudged reasonable by society and especially by law enforcement bodies.

Reasonable "regulation" in NYC amounts to outrageous oppression in many states. I lived in NY, now in GA: the former required a long string of paperwork, driving and $$$ for a simple purchase, while the latter has zero state-gov't involvement (just pay & walk away). NYC was far stricter than NY generally, which in turn is far stricter than GA, which is somewhat stricter than VT and AK. The "reasonable" restrictions Rudy is familiar with would literally cause a revolt in GA.

Convicted felons are not permitted firearms.

The line defining "felon" is lowering rapidly. In NY, simple possession of a post-'94 magazine over 10 rounds is a felony. According to Rudy, simply having this in the back of your closet is enough to strip you of your 2nd Amednment rights:

Those of us with Concealed Carry permits have gone through a background check to determine if applicants have a criminal record.

You don't need a CCW permit for simple possession in most states. Depth of CCW permit background checks vary wildly from comprehensive (NY: fingerprints, character witnesses) to cursory (NH: name doesn't come up on quick records check). VT and AK don't need permits for CCW at all (the way it should be).

To read more into Rudy's statement(s) than is actually there is wrong. Period.

To ignore the context of Rudy's statements is wrong. Period.

Rudy though it "reasonable", even necessary, to sue the firearms industry en masse. Think about it: the full financial and legal strength of the world's most powerful & influential city vs. a handful of rather small modest-margin manufacurers/importers (ex.: I've been to Glock's headquarters ... it's a small 1-story office building). The goal of the suit was not to come to a legal ruling, but to overwhelm relatively small companies with unbearably expensive legal maneuvers.

Rudy thought it "reasonable" to maintain, and to further enforce, a legal and bureaucratic system where CCW and related permits were practically impossible to obtain. Even if you got one, it was so heavily restricted and suspect that one would hesitate to use it. Yes, technically you could get one - IF you navigated thru lots of paperwork, came to inconvenient offices at inconvenient times for prolonged waits, paid high $$$ fees (including just to get the forms), were invariably rejected, filed an appeal, gave a "reason" that someone who didn't want you to have the permit would accept (when I got my NY permit, there was literally a sign at the desk saying "self-defense is not a legitimate reason"), and finally get the permit, stamped with restrictions (ex.: "sporting use only") ... and Rudy sees this as "reasonable". In VT, you walk into a store, shell out your $500 for a Glock & holster, put 'em on your belt, and walk out - unlicensed carry (open or concealed) is "reasonable" there. Don't try to force the former on the latter.

Additionally, Rudy has made it clear he thinks it is "reasonable" (with social & police approval as you note) to outright ban "assault weapons" (exactly what the 2nd Amendment seeks to protect), ".50 cals" (modern equivalent of small 1776 cannons), and "sniper rifles" (hunting rifles), along with strict licensing of handguns (barely licensed in half of states).

You underestimate the differences much of the country reads into the term "reasonable regulation".

We might give just a little attention to what any of the Democrat Presidential candidates, especially Clinton, will do to the Second Amendment in coordination with a Democrat House and Senate.

I saw what a Republican governor (Pataki in NY) did to the 2nd Amendment, in coordination with a Democratic Assembly and Senate. It was outrageous. Democrats could not have asked for more. I left the state. I don't want that situation following me via a federal equivalent.

What Rudy thinks (by both what he has said and done) is "reasonable restrictions" mirrors much of the Brady line. We cannot simply take one warm-fuzzy comment at face value, we must view that comment in light of his history, context, and actions. Put him on the other ticket, and his RKBA views would look right at home next to Kerry, Gore, Clinton, ...

[tacticalogic]

All I read here is he is anti second amendment. I am reading a lot of why, but I am not seeing the proof.

His support of the AWB translates directly to a belief that the federal government's power to "regulate commerce among the several states" is of the "substantial effects" variety. That means that he believes that power encompasses control of vitrually anything you do and everything you own, and that it is superior to your individual right to keep and bear arms, and probably any other rights as well.

As Clarence Thomas said, "The substantial effects test is no test at all. It is a blank check."

[Dave S]

The 2nd Amendment is not about the right to hunt bears. But to bear arms in self-defense.

When was the last time anyone in this country needed that tank or howitzer you feel is okay for self defense?

[OMalley]

Pffft, even the dems here, HECK even alot of the liberals here have guns and or hunt as well.

We had some lefties up the street. Big Al Gore fans and after seeing his global warming flick, packed up and left our fine city due to "coal dust". EVEN they had guns! LOL

[dirtboy]

So Rudy sent the police to your door, asking for your guns?

Freeper Pharmboy had two NYC permits for almost two decades. Rudy made it almost impossible to get new ones, even though Pharmboy did nothing wrong.

He had to turn in his guns. And that was not an isolated instance.

[dirtboy]

When was the last time anyone in this country needed that tank or howitzer you feel is okay for self defense?

Why do you see the need to restrict rights because you don't care to exercise such yourself?

[George W. Bush]

Hannity is a "New York Republican", the standard principles do not apply to New Yorkers.

New York Democrats = far Left socialists
New York Republicans = very liberal candidates that can't get the Dim nomination in New York.

The Republican slot on New York ballots is just an entry point for those not quite fascist and socialist enough to get the Dim nomination.

New York's Conservative party is just another liberal sellout operation.

Hannity and Giuliani are typical. Hannity is planning to be the major shill for Giuliani nationally. Hopefully, it will be the end of that pompous windbag.

[facedown]

In case you didn't see this thread.

[beltfed308]

Outstanding! Thanks for posting!

[OMalley]

"Hannity and Giuliani are typical. Hannity is planning to be the major shill for Giuliani nationally. Hopefully, it will be the end of that pompous windbag"

I havent been able to watch him for a few years now. He just looks conservative next to colmes.

[from occupied ga]

When was the last time anyone in this country needed that tank or howitzer you feel is okay for self defense?

1865

[trisham]

The Oval Office can either be a pathway or a barrier.

*************

Agreed. It's perplexing to see those who on one hand argue vehemently for Rudy, and on the other, claim it doesn't really matter who is elected.

[Delphinium]

We had some lefties up the street. Big Al Gore fans and after seeing his global warming flick, packed up and left our fine city due to "coal dust"

Great, I love it when they go home.

I think you have more liberals moving there than we do, except Boise is growing huge and changing rapidly.

Statistic say that Republicans move to Idaho atleast 2, to 1 democrat.

Trouble with even the many who come for social conservative values is they too have been brainwashed by the corrupt places they come from.

Many are also animal rights nuts, envirowackos, and have no clue about private property rights.And as many on this thread, ignorant about the 2nd amendment.

[Delphinium]

He just looks conservative next to colmes.

Not lately. He always shows his true colors when he is star struck.