Guliani dancing on second amendment

He needs to change his thought patterns if he wants to win.

He needs to differentiate his views on gun control and that damn woman who is also running from New York City.

He needs a 2nd Amendment advisor or he is going to end up losing the election.

Marc

What's this "densely populated" crap?

The City of Milwaukee is also "densely populated." Therefore, Milwaukee should not allow self-defense?

This kinda crap is what slowly DE-populates cities; normal people leave because it's better than becoming a statistic.

He won't change his position, and his position is he supports clearly unconstitutional laws. Rudy is DOA for us 2nd Amendment types.

Actually, as much as I disagree with New York's Sullivan Law, Rudy is right. The Second says that "Congress shall make no law". The New York Legislature is not Congress.
The States may do what they wish concerning RTBA, that is Federalism. Well, at least within their own State Constitutions.
Now, whether or not you, or I, decide to support Rudy is a seperate issue.

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.

The well-known densely populated city exception to the Second Amendment.

Cities experiencing serious crimes problems make it more urgent, not less, for law-abiding citizens to be capable of defending themselves with handguns.

re: 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. "

------

He's unable to distinquish between known felons and citizens who have never harmed anyone, or intended to. He thinks the constitution permits a city government to disarm and punish both groups equally, as he uses the police to "take guns out of the streets."

Peter:

Now which one of those post Civil War Amendments was it that applied the Bill of Rights to the States?

Dave Hardy:

Check out the lead story on-line at the Legal Times. You will find it interesting.

Peter,

If my state chooses to allow only state run newspapers that are neo-nazi then that is not an abrogation of the 1st amemdment, as my state is not congress?

Heck, my state could pass a law saying you cannot speak in the border of my state.

Under that interpretation then entire bill of rights is meaningless. Is that really what you are thinking? You cannot pick and choose to enforce the 1st by striking down laws but ignore the second by failing to do so.

RKV, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

The Second Amendment says "...shall not be infringed." By that argument, the states can regulate newspapers, speech, or religion, but can not infringe upon possession or carry (keep and bear) of firearms.

It should be noted that NY had a high crime rate despite those firearm laws when he took office, and had a lower crime rate when he left office. Washington, DC continues to have a high crime rate despite such laws. That implies that the firearm laws are ineffective. Of course when the NYPD were hassling squeegee men, it was a proud moment for NY's Finest.

Like all politicians, Guliani is trying to have it both ways. Gun control is OK in cities, where many voters support gun control laws but not OK out in the sticks. Typical spinelessness.

I agree with what Peter said. Our founding fathers never intended the Bill of Rights to restrict State action, its up to our State constitutions to gaurantee those rights. I am, however, a firm believer in natural law and believe that states do not have a moral right to intrude on our RKBA.

Michael,

"Our founding fathers never intended the Bill of Rights to restrict State action, its up to our State constitutions to gaurantee those rights."

But the 14th Amendment did. It prohibits states from interfering with our fundamental freedoms. The Courts are simply to chicken to recognize that the RKBA is a fundamental right like speech or assembly. It is clear from the language used and from the comments of those who passed the 14th, however, that they intended that amendmen to protect the RKBA against state interference.

I think "states' rights" is a reasonable position. Let's not make this the Republican Inquisition; Rudy's signalled he won't try to make NY's laws apply in Utah. That should be good enough.

Or, you know, you can nominate a hard-core conservative and when Hillary is elected we'll get national gun control and a SCOTUS that thinks the 2nd Amendment is a meaningless anachronism.

Rudy is not going to get my vote, unless and until he changes his tune regarding the second amendment.

I think from seeing some (well actually most) of the comments here that the 'right' has the same fanatical death-wish as the 'left'. Get a grip, folks.

You sound almost like refugees from Kos's cesspool except that your fixation is on GUNS.

What makes any of you think that imposing a strict litmus test on people more like you than the 'others' is going to help your cause?

You people very much deserve what you very likely to get. Hillary as President and a completely controlled Democratic Congress. Because it's coming. As surely as death and taxes in 2008. Unless the Republicans nominate a WINNER.

Well at least then you will really have something to be concerned about. Want to bet they won't give a rat's a** about your values?

I'll take that bet if you want to gamble.

"So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?"

Yeah sure why not if it gets me elected...

Next question?

Don Meaker, I think you have me confused with Peter.
It's pretty clear from early case law that the BOR didn't apply to states. That said, I think that was in error then (e.g. if so, then the states could disarm the militia, which is "necessary for the free state"). See also the 10th Amendment. Since then the 14th Amendment was passed and as originally intended applied the BOR to the states. I am well aware of the "partial incorporation" legal theory - and consider it an error. It was in point of fact, a way to allow legalized racial discrimination.

Once more and to clarify - any presidential candidate who considers New York's gun laws a) constitutional or b) wise, is not OK with me. Rudy fits both of those cases, and therefore fails my "litmus test."

I watched with disgust as Rudy tried to explain away his anti-gun history in NYC. He as much as said that he supports reasonable restrictions and then that a near-complete ban is a reasonable restriction. If he really believes that logic, than that is very bad.

I can't help but think that he needed an excuse and had not thought it through. I have not yet decided who I'll be supporting in the primary, but Newt Gingrich comes to mind. If Rudy gets the nomination, though, he has my vote. I'll not be voting for a Clinton, an Obama or any of those other facists.

As for the "incorporation doctrine" that is such a joke. More judicial activism. It will be hard to argue, though, should the case ever rise to the SCOTUS, that the 2nd Amendment is not essential to liberty, or whatever the exact phrase is.

Hold on folks...Rudy is not a gun rights absolutist in any sense but he did two things quite right during his tenure.

First, a couple of you have complained that he didn't treat criminals any different than law-abiding citizens. This is wrong. He did indeed differentiate between felons with guns and law-abiding citizens. Rudy was the only mayor in modern NYC history to specifically and aggressively use the gun laws to *focus* on illegal guns and gun crime.

Second, the typical politician just demogogues the issue: calling for new gun laws rather than enforcing the laws that exist. *This* is what leads to creeping loss of rights. It is to his benefit that the gun laws under his administration did not get worse.

The guy strikes me as a very practical, pragmatic leader. Did he make gun law liberalization a priority? No...but it wouldn't even make sense for him to have tried. For one, the City Council would never have gone along with it. More importantly, NYC had MUCH worse problems to deal with. You can't possibly expect him to spend all his political capital on your favorite issue - with no prospect of winning - when over 2K people a year were being murdered.

I'm a member of the NRA and an avid shooter but it strikes me as absurd to judge Guiliani so harshly on this issue. For point of comparison, McCain's direct *expansion* of restrictions on freedom of speech is far more worrisome to me than Guiliani's use of existing gun laws to focus on street crime.