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.
I didn't want to pile on.
" 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."
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand, Benito Giuliani?
On one hand you have Rudy Giuliani stating that people have the right to bear arms, while at the same time (which is something neither he nor Hannity saw fit to mention) he was doing everything in his power to see to it that almost nobody in New York City could exercise that right.
What people have to understand is that "the right to keep and bear arms" in New York City is a "right" that is pretty much afforded only to law enforcement officers, licensed security guards, and celebrities. This sounds like the kind of policy that would come from a bunch of star-crossed dipsh!ts like the Clinton administration.
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.
Regarding his proposals, personally I don't think handgun bans are reasonable at all, nor is the assault weapons ban, which bans rifles solely based on their looks. There's no legitimate social need to ban ugly looking rifles. Licensing by definition includes the right of denial, that won't hold up. Obviously Rudy disagrees.
Then there are his actions. "Stop and Frisk" to check for illegal handguns. Unconstitutional, I'd say that falls under unreasonable.
The manufacturers lawsuit, rejected by the courts, Congress, and the President. Reasonable to consider it unreasonable.
I don't trust Rudy's ability to make "reasonable" judgements when it comes to firearms. His concern isn't the second amendment, it's law enforcement.