Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by 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.
Did Congressional Republicans speak out against this? I'm sure Hunter has a soundbite criticizing this, right?
True, but that argument effectively kills RKBA. See below.
"Reasonable restrictions" is an oxymoron when it comes to guns. The 2nd Amendment bans all restrictions.
No it doesn't, and none of the Bill of Rights can or should be interpreted that way. For example, do you believe members of the public attending a murder trial have an absolute right to bring Uzis into the courtroom? Does a citizen have the right to bring a loaded high-powered rifle to a balcony overlooking a Presidential speech? Banning ALL restrictions is not a defensible position, and you would learn that if you tried to win your Supreme Court case by strapping on a flamethrower for oral argument.
People have got to remember that the Bill of Rights is misnamed. It is the Bill of Prohibitions on Congressional Infringement.
So you are arguing that the Incorporation Doctrine should be reversed by SCOTUS and the Bill of Rights should only apply to Congress and not the States? That's a reasonable legal argument (albeit hopeless to overturn) -- but if you believe that, then what's the beef with Rudy? The laws he enforced were state laws and according to you not subject to the 2nd Amendment. That means RKBA does not exist if state lawmakers decide to ignore it.
You need to be very careful arguing Constitutional Law, because a perfectly valid point that you make can end up undermining your position. Even Solicitor General Starr made that error in oral arguments at SCOTUS.
On Reagan and gun control. Reagan signed the Mulford Act in a dumb attempt to stop the radical group, the Black Panthers from carrying weapons. Later in 1994, Reagan was contacted about supporting the Brady Bill by Jim and Sara Brady themselves. Some Reaganites said Ronnie wasn't in the best frame of mind at that time. Others have said that Reagan was simply standing with his good friend who was shot in the head and almost killed in the 1981 assasination attempt on Reagan life by John Hinckley. I'm not making excuses for Reagan, but I'm willing to give him a pass on his support for the Brady Bill. Jim Brady was his good friend.
As POTUS, Ronald Reagan didn't support any assault weapons ban, nor did he ever infringe on the 2nd amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Reagan did sign one bill outlawing "cop-killer" bullets. Reagan also signed the Firearms and Owners Protection Act of 1986. The FOPA was supported by the gun rights advocates.
Here's a link to an essay Reagan wrote in 1975 for Guns and Ammo magazine: Ronald Reagan: The Gun Owner's Champion. Reagan was pro-2nd amendmenta dn suppported the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
I think we should stay focused on Rudy Giuliani's record supporting gun control. Reagan isn't the issue. Besdies, mistakes that were made 15-40 years shouldn't be repeated.
If gun control was the only issue, then yes, you might be correct. But even then, a gun owner (and in reality everyone) is better off with the candidate who would be ok with a few more restrictions than the candidate that would actively pursue far, far more. Lots of social conservatives grumbled about George Bush not doing more to rein in abortions, but how much more damage was done by Clinton and his judicial appointments (and not just with the Supreme Court)?
Right now for me it comes down to electability in the general, and sadly no one conservative on all sides has emerged so far that appears to have a shot. We are fighting against the tide right now, there is a natural urge for change in politics. The grass is always greener and sooner or later enough blame usually builds (often unfair, but whatever) that it becomes almost impossible for one party to retain the executive post for too many elections. Which is why at times you have the GOP winning in MA, NY, and CA, while the Dems sometimes win in WY, UT, OK, and soon TX. Not inevitable, but a big factor.
While a Rudy win might result in a stalemate or even slight slippage on some social and/or gun issues, conservatism would still move forward on tax cuts, budgets, reform, privatization, right to work, school choice, entitlements, agency cleaning house (one of W's biggest mistakes), foreign policy, and more. And with coattails a retaken Senate could get even more done.
A perfect conservative who lose the general accomplishes nothing but insuring conservatism will take hits for another 2 years.
Like I said, it did not prohibit the transport of firearms, unloaded and in a case in any way, shape, or form.
"The import of some shotguns was prohibited by President Reagan? "
Yes, I know. They were called street sweepers. More than 10 rounds I think. I think there was 1, 2 models(or types).
"With this clear evidence of Mr. Reagan supporting the Brady Bill"
Brady was a compromise, and requires a background check for commercial transactions. I said I knew Reagan's position and what he did. There's more than you list, but that's not important. All that's left is a minimal right. Reagan is not a hero here, nor did he take aggressive actions like Rudy did, to destroy the ability to minimally exercise that right. He's got no support here whatsoever. If the reps can't find a candidate in the entire US, that will protect freedom, and get them on the ticket, I'll have a tough decision, whether to vote for buggs bunney, or Winnie the Pooh.
Personally, I think people were just tired of the dead-weight Republicans. Were some, perhaps, unfairly a victim of this Yep. But you learn from it and make it better the next time.
The mythology these people have built up around Reagan and other Republican presidents as it relates to a variety of issues, including gun control, is just stunning and only serves to reinforce my feelings that a lot of these "freepers" aren't Republicans at all.
That law was a mix of gun pros and cons.
I don't take someone seriously who says the critical political threshhold in this country is 60 percent when it is 67 percent when your guy sits in the Oval Office.
Patience, grasshopper, I'm answering everybody in his turn. So tell me, were you completely ignorant of the filibuster, or did you just forget about it?
Are you completely oblivious of the vote required to override a veto? You sure seem so. And you might think you are being slick, but you're just re-inforcing your growing reputation as an uninformed blowhard.
Well, that's part of it. But very early in the history of this Republic, we decided that those guys were the final authority. And it's probably going to be impossible to change that decision now.
The sad thing is that by not challenging whether the 2nd extends to the states, we are building decades of precedent where it clearly does not. Our own silence can and will be used against us.
No one said the bill prohibited the "transport" of firearms. What the conservative web site link I gave you said is that the bill prohibited "carrying" arms.
It says what it says. No carrying on one's person, no carrying in a car. Period.
Now, if the conservative FrontPage magainze is wrong, just give me another link.
"Don't vote for the Republican candidate in the primary just because he is electable. Electable got us Gerald Ford! Electable got us Bob Dole! Vote for the right-wing kook. That's RONALD REAGAN!!"
I was going to quote that. Giuliani, if he wins the nomination, would easily be the most anti-second amendment republican candidate ever in U.S. history. Not good.
Yes, I know. Thanks.
Like much of what we get nowadays.
I do appreciate the post. I was unaware of the detail about banning auto fire weapons post 1986.
That's so sweet. The guy that brought NYC back from the dead twice is called an inmate.
I am going to love it when these career Congressional Republicans dreaming of winning the Presidency crash and burn in the primaries due to lack of money, name recognition, or a hit piece from the MSM. That big bad 3rd party is going to form -- Despite the fact that Rudy will pick a strong conservative VP -- nope, conservatives want a President who'll rule by decree and abolish abortion overnight.
Thanks for the warning, but I don't let my opponents tell me when I'm winning or losing a battle, and I'm quite happy with the scorecard here so far.
Citizens Crime Comission
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
1095 Avenue of the Americas
March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.
Thank you. Good morning. It is a pleasure to join all of you here today for the Citizens Crime Commission's breakfast.
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.
The Empire State Building is such an important landmark... such an important symbol of America that, like so many other places in New York City, when a tragedy happens there, it receives a great deal of attention in the media.
However, with this latest incident, we saw something rather remarkable happen, because perceptions about New York City have finally changed.
Thanks to our historic reductions in serious crime, we have been able to get the message out that New York City is just about the safest large city in America.
People throughout the world no longer see New York City as a national symbol of the plague of crime and violence. Now people see New York as a safe, decent place, and as a leader in fighting crime.
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control.
And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
The man who committed this despicable act of hatred and violence came to the United States on December 24th. First, he arrived in New York and then traveled to Melbourne, Florida, where he checked into a cheap hotel.
Using the hotel address, he was able to obtain a photo ID card, and that was all he needed to buy a gun, a .380 Beretta, capable of firing 14 rounds in 4 or 5 seconds.
Because in Florida, although they have relatively strict regulations to obtain a gun license, gun licenses are only necessary for carrying concealed weapons. A license is not required to buy a gun. To buy a gun all that is required is a photo ID.
And that is when buying from a retailer. In private transactions at gun shows, or purchasing a gun from a private individual, there is nothing required whatsoever.
Ironically, if Mr. Hassan Kamal had wanted to buy a car, or even drive a car legally, he would not have been able to, because in Florida obtaining a drivers license is much more difficult than buying a gun.
In fact, getting a drivers license is more difficult than buying a gun in most places. A drivers license requires several forms of official identification proving residency.
It requires a written test and a road test, and a thorough background investigation is done to determine if the applicant has a history of driving recklessly, or unlawfully.
And these drivers license requirements are fairly uniform from state to state, which demonstrates that from region to region, a vast majority of Americans accept that driving an automobile is potentially very dangerous and requires sensible regulations.
However, guns kill many more people than automobiles do, even though there are many more cars than guns, and cars are used much more often than guns.
In New York City, in 1996 there were 414 fatalities caused by traffic accidents, but there were 987 fatalities involving firearms.
I think one of the reasons that the procedures for obtaining a drivers license and buying and operating a car have become uniform and sensible is that insurance is required for automobiles.
And the insurance industry has standardized what is necessary to get insurance. Cars must be registered and trackable.
Cars are required to undergo periodic safety inspections in many states. Driving records are computerized and traceable, and drivers licenses must be periodically renewed.
Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns. If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.
As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license.
But as it stands now, although some localities like New York City have relatively stringent rules for purchasing a gun, many other states require next to nothing, and without a uniform policy, we all lose.
In fact, a recently released study indicates that of 2,225 guns confiscated in New York City, more than 92 percent of the guns were originally purchased out of state--and more than 60 percent of them came from 5 states, Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia.
When looking at the FBI total index crimes list, which shows number of crimes on a per capita basis for cities with population more than 100,000, it is not a coincidence that 4 (t.b.v.) of the top 10 are in Florida, and 6 (t.b.v.) are in the South, where gun control laws are very lax.
New York City on the contrary, where the requirements for purchasing a gun are more rigorous, ranks 144th on that list.
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements.
His proposals include:
prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including photo id. and something like a utility bill in the buyers name... similar to what is required for a drivers license; making cop killer, or Teflon coated, armor piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal Officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.
I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can. I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.
We in New York and other places are working very hard to control crime and especially to reduce criminal incidents involving guns.
Here in New York, we have seen more than a 50 percent decrease in shootings since 1993, but to complete the job we've started, we need the help of other states, and of the Federal Government to promulgate more rigorous gun purchasing requirements nation wide.
Then we won't have 90 percent of our city's guns being brought in from other localities to commit heinous crimes like the tragedy on the Empire State Building.
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
Just as unimpeded interstate travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but we reserve the right to regulate driving automobiles, so too must we sensibly regulate gun purchases to preserve the safety of all Americans.
Thank you.
First test, can he win the primary. If he runs.
Ten thousand dollars says Hillary Clinton will be the nominee unless she is dead. Oh please, somebody take me up on it.
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.