Posted on 05/24/2007 1:51:07 PM PDT by calcowgirl
KEENE, N.H. -- Rudolph Giuliani Wednesday sounded open to letting anyone who's not a criminal or mental patient carry a concealed handgun -- even telling a woman who packs a piece in New York that it's OK with him.
(snip)
Giuliani's days as a crusading anti-gun mayor are behind him now that he's running for president, and Wednesday he staked out a simple test for concealed-carry permits, which are tightly controlled in New York. He asked two questions -- Are you a criminal, and have you ever been institutionalized? -- and to the laughter of the audience, rendered his verdict when she said no to both.
"As far as I am concerned, you can have a concealed weapon," he said. "The Constitution of the United States in the Second Amendment gives you an individual right to bear arms; that individual right is as strong as your individual right to free speech, free assembly, being safe against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Outside the event, Giuliani said his test came from a recent federal court ruling overturning a tough District of Columbia gun ban, which set what he considered "reasonable" limits on gun ownership. He said he believes that individual states should decide who can carry weapons.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
That’s one of the things I don’t get about some people’s arguments about gun control by the states. Why would one of our Constitutional rights be subject to limitation by the states? If the 2nd Amendment can be restricted, then logically, the same can be done with the other Amendments.
How about no 5th Amendment in Alabama?
Or a repeal of the 19th Amendment in South Carolina?
Repeal of the 1st Amendment in California?
Repeal of the 4th Amendment in New York?
Open up one Constitutional right to state regulation, and you open them all up to state regulation. If these rights were held to be self-evident, particularly the Bill of Rights, then it makes no sense whatsoever for someone to say that the state can limit or regulate them.
That said, in cases where the Constitution doesn’t say anything (abortion, homosexual marriage), then there’s the 10th Amendment.
Yes, he is. Doesn’t he know that this right is ENUMERATED in The Constitution, and therefore is NOT a right that should be left up to the states to decide?
Hey, Hannity!
Can ya help us out, here?
How do you do that sarcasm thing?
Ugh -- yet again he claims the Constitution gives us rights! Our rights are inalienable -- if the government gave us our rights, the government could rightfully take them away.
Once again Giuliani, the self-proclaimed strict constructionist, proves that he doesn't have a clue about even the most basic premise of the Constitution. And if he doesn't understand Constitution 101, he has zero chance of appointing originalist judges even if he wanted to.
He just doesn’t get it, does he? You’d think he could at least clean up his talking points.
If I supported him, I’d be embarrassed. As it is, I hope he keeps it up. LOL
I know! I keep expecting someone on his campaign to counsel him about his huge screw-ups when speaking about basic Constitutional issues...and then I hear an interview a week later and he’s making the same major bloomer!
But he’s a strict constructionist, doncha know. :)
Beware of those who throw the term strict constructionist around. The first president to do so was Richard Nixon who brought us Henry A. Blackmun.
Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade and interpretations that led to Environmental groups gaining standing in federal cases (e.g. Sierra Club). Not to mention a host of other non-constructionist opinions on immigrant rights, homosexuals rights to privacy, reverse discrimination, church-state separation, etc.
I firmly believe, due to the nature of their work, that prosecutors have the hardest time understanding the concept of "a government of laws, rather than of men." So, therefore, inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator is forever lost on them.
Think about either him, or Eliot Spitzer being POTUS!!! (Or, how 'bout those pukes that are the current and immediate past AG's for CA?)
New York City Sues Gun Industry
By Mayor Rudy Giuliani
On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0626.html
Good point, SW! When Rudy says stuff about “regulating” our rights, or that he thinks we should (vs. shouldn’t) have certain rights, I just want to scream! A right is a right and he best not think about regulatin’ mine! LOL.
I pinged you to this because I didn’t realize before doing some reading that Blackmun (one of Nixon’s “strict constructionists”) was one of the first guys making way for the enviro-thugs getting standing in federal court cases. I started to put together a whole summary on him, but got tired. (See my incomplete partial summary, below. The part on the Environment is a whopper—ahh, hindsight!).
Ellery has got quite a collection of all of the constitutional abuses of the subject in question. We combined research a while back looking at all of the things that NY was doing: public frisking, surveillance cameras, gun confiscation, etc.
Ellery... SierraWasp is one of our finest California posters who loves liberty and despises Earl Warren and the enviro-thugs! I’m glad you two have met! :-)
Harry A. Blackmun
(American Supreme Court justice, 1908-1999)
Harry Andrew Blackmun was appointed by President Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court in 1970. Nixon described him as “a strict constructionist” and “a law-and-order justice.”
A 1932 graduate of Harvard Law School, where he had studied under Felix Frankfurter, his first judgeship came in 1959 when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He developed a reputation as a conservative, relatively progressive in civil rights matters and moderate in civil liberties cases. In 1968, he was a member of a three-judge panel that ordered the secretary of state in Minnesota to put the Communist Party on the ballot. In later years he broadened his view of judicial activism and increasingly supported civil liberties leaving him with a legacy as one of the more liberal of the nine Supreme Court justices, a champion of the underdog, and one who played a key role in interpreting the law in support of the disadvantaged.
Environment: On environmental issues he called for an “imaginative expansion” of traditional standing concepts that would allow public interest groups to enter environmental cases. When the Sierra Club was found to lack standing as “a representative of the public” in a case challenging the development of a ski resort in the Sequoia National Forest (Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972), Blackmun lamented “The case poses ... a wide, growing, and disturbing problem, that is, the Nation’s and the world’s deteriorating environment with its resulting ecological disturbances. Must our law be so rigid and our procedural concepts so inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when the existing methods and the traditional concepts do not quite fit and do not prove to be entirely adequate for new issues?” As one of two alternatives, he wrote in his dissent “I would permit an imaginative expansion of our traditional concepts of standing in order to enable an organization such as the Sierra Club... to litigate environmental issues. This incursion upon tradition need not be very extensive. Certainly, it should be no cause for alarm. ...We need not fear that Pandora’s box will be opened or that there will be no limit to the number of those who desire to participate in environmental litigation. The courts will exercise appropriate restraints just as they have exercised them in the past. “ The case, and others expanding upon it, opened federal courts up to a wealth of litigation.
Right of Privacy: In the 1982 case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law, specifically, that the constitution did not create “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.” In Blackmun’s dissent, he attacked the majority opinion as having an “almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity” suggesting “[o]nly the most willful blindness could obscure the fact that sexual intimacy is ‘a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality.’”
Death Penalty: In his early years, Blackmun supported the death penalty declaring in Furman v. Georgia in 1971 “I yield to no one in the depth of my distaste, antipathy, and, indeed, abhorrence, for the death penalty... We should not allow our personal preferences as to the wisdom of legislative and congressional action, or our distaste for such action, to guide our judicial decisions such as these.” He again supported the death penalty in 1972 as one of three dissenters when it was declared unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment.” But in 1994, he dissented again, changing his stance and writing that he was “morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment had failed.”
Affirmative Action:
Abortion:
Immigrants Rights:
Church-State Separation:
The list of sins are long, aren’t they?
I think that one was posted at FR, among so many others:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=rudyonguns
Yes, far too long.
Well it hasn't worked that way with Jorge in the White House and there's no reason to expect any different from Rudy.
I was just going to post pretty much the same thing, then I scrolled down and saw yours.
Yea, the problem I have with Rudy is: I DON'T TRUST HIM!
I figure he'll flip flop on anything just to get elected, and then flip back to where he really wants to be afterwards.
That made him a danged liar in chief right there and then!!!
I'm sorry to say that the longer I live, the more I'm discovering about Republican Presidents and other leaders that adds to my growing string of disappointments...
Even Teddy Roosevelt asserted that if the constitution was silent about anything to do with the executive branch, that that authorized him to take whatever action he deemed fit, in spite of a long tradition to the contrary amongst all his predecessors.
He was neither a conservative, nor and environmentalist when everything he did is re-examined. He threw open the doors to big government intrusion in our everyday lives in ways that would shock even Hitlery Clinton! Yet Republicans just look the other way, like they did when Nixon took a stab at Wage & Price controls!!!
I have made so many good friends amongst Republicans over the many years and it's truly sad how many just see nothing important about making a commitment to consistent conservatism. They fear it'll make 'em look like knuckledraggers if they adhere to a fundamental constitutional doctrine of "that government that governs least, governs best!"
They are incapable of basing their standards of public policy on the principles handed down through the Magna Carte, the Declaration of Independence and our practically devinely inspired constitution. It was devinely inspired by people who recently invented printing presses so they could read the devinely inspired Word of God that guided their devotion to this new world.
Now all these Republican leaders can think of is some sinister "New World Order!" I now know that means a world without sovereign national borders, national cultures, or national languages. I do not wish to be a citizen of "the world," with no national rights anymore than our states have rights inspite of our Tenth Amendment rights which have been neutered!!!
Now it looks like we're gonna have "NO ILLEGAL ALIEN LEFT BEHIND!!!" (That phrase is copyrighted and I will sue for royalties if not recognized as the author!)
Hallmarks of liberal revisionist. The mysterious they (true conservative) and the confining true.
One element of the reply does have the ring of honesty. If you support and vote for a European liberal, you'll elect a liberal.
Obviously, for Republicans, their imported liberal is somehow better than a homegrown, Democrat liberal.
I wish he believed that in 1999 when I had to give up my CCW in NYC after 19 years. He is talking the talk, but...
Under Rudy, yes. That's the scary thing.
The man does not love freedom. Only power.
typical lib flip flopper
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.