Pataki Signs Bill Allowing Possession of Self-Defense Sprays (Giuliani opposed - 1995)

NY Times ^ | Published: July 31, 1996 | RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

[lowbridge]

Whoops: HAVE your predictions....

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

All Rudy’s predictions now has belong to us.

[dirtboy]

Still, opponents of the law, including Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir, have expressed concerns that the sprays might fall into the hands of criminals or be misused by citizens who lack proper training.

What a friggin' authoritarian control freak. Rudy would impose a police state on America.

[dirtboy]

When the cops finally came they acted like they didn’t hear me when I told them about the tear gas pen.

I hope such cops that were still in the force during Rudy's Administration weren't fired for allowing serfs the right to self-defense, no matter how modest.

[Recovering Hermit]

Rudy’s right on attitude. He’s just too wrong, too often, on too many issues.

Rudy should probably see a shrink...maybe two.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Giuliani appears to be a radical opponent of our God-given right to defend ourselves”

Amen to THAT !!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Tagline BUMP

[eXe]

Yeah I lived there thoughout most of my childhood.. and getting a gun in NYC is a joke and an expensive year long process.

Now I live out in Nevada and have a safe full..

Funny, I carried Mace in NYC all the years I lived there. I would buy it on Canal street.. I never even knew it was illegal.. lol

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think Rudy may surprise a lot of detractors on this issue. Note his supportive statements re the recent DC Circuit Court decision.

Rudy didn’t just inherit gun control laws, he also inherited anti-criminal control laws, along with the judges and politicians who supported them. Rudy is no friend of criminals, and if he could have had his way in NYC, he’d have had them all locked up ‘til they were too old to even think about mugging or raping or murdering somebody, or exxecuted. But he didn’t have his way on that, and neither did mayors of other crime-ridden big cities all over the country. The powerful, nationwide political and social forces which brought us the ever-expanding welfare state also brought a “justice” system which involved endless second chances, ridiculously short sentences even for repeat offenders, decades-long taxpayer-funded appeals processes for death sentences, and routine plea bargains and getting off on technicalities.

Rudy did a heck of a lot better than his predecessors in getting criminals off the street, but he was very much limited by the “justice” system. His positions on gun laws and other weapons laws for NYC were formulated against an unchangeable (as far as his terms were concerned) backdrop of a huge population of violent criminals roaming the streets. That situation is just as unconstitutional as gun control laws, but the federal courts — not Rudy — were the source of most of the criminal-coddling interpretaions of law. Given the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court judges, Rudy is NOT going to appoint the sort of idiots who decided that vicious murderers should get off scot free if they weren’t read their “Miranda rights” before they were questioned. The reality of having veteran murderers and organized gangsters running all over the streets of a crowded city is not irrelevant to practical decision-making about near-term gun and weapons laws.

Personally, I’m from the school of thought which advocates curbing the criminal population through a policy of “shoot on sight and shoot to kill”. But with the legal and demographic situation that Rudy inherited in NYC, including a law-abiding population that was (and still is) overwhelmingly in favor of extreme gun control laws and overwhelmingly ignorant of how to operate a gun, just suddenly declaring open season on criminals and lifting all gun control laws would not have had the desired effect. It would have led to a sudden increase in violent crime committed with guns, followed immediately by a huge resurgence in popular demand for “more gun control”.

[ellery]

Politicians do not have the authority to ignore Constitutional protections just because it's convenient for them to do so. The Constitution does not have a severability clause whereby we can let our elected employees ignore one section but not another. Even if you don't agree that out-of-control criminality makes it more critical for law-abiding citizens to be armed, do you see how one widely accepted Constitutional infringement leads inexorably to the death of our Constitutional Republic?

That said, even by your reasoning how do you justify Giuliani's oppositiont o non-lethal self-defense spray? Were those violent criminals roving the streets mounting sudden spray-sneezing attacks?

His positions on gun laws and other weapons laws for NYC were formulated against an unchangeable (as far as his terms were concerned) backdrop of a huge population of violent criminals roaming the streets. That situation is just as unconstitutional as gun control laws...

I understand how this situation would be undesirable, but how is it unConstitutional? Are you claiming that by infringing God-given rights, Giuliani was actually upholding another part of the Constitution?

[ZULU]

“Still, opponents of the law, including Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir, have expressed concerns that the sprays might fall into the hands of criminals or be misused by citizens who lack proper training.”

Wonder how he would feel about pepper spray against attacking bears.

These elitists are so transparent.

[hiredhand]

Here's to Rudy...

[Fred Hayek]

Rudy did a heck of a lot better than his predecessors in getting criminals off the street, but he was very much limited by the “justice” system.

He also inherited the legacy of the likes of “Judge” “Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce” Wright. Still, it’s a sick system in New York when any kind of self defense is a crime - almost as bad as Britain.

BTW, there have been a number of times in NYC I was mistaken for Bernie Goetz.

[Parmenio]

They were on my side. They were telling me in so many words not to include that in my formal report.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Rudy was dealing with the practical reality he was faced with. The courts were simply not going to keep violent criminals off the streets, and about 99% of his constituents wanted strict gun control laws and other nanny state measures to protect them. I don’t have any stats on the use of pepper spray in NYC crimes, but I’m sure if it was readily available, there were some gangbangers using it to facilitate muggings. As long as it was legal, you had to wait til they used it to arrest them. Yes, the whole situation sucks, but Rudy was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and he did make things a whole lot better. Ask anybody who lived in NYC during both the Dinkins and Giuliani administrations.

I don’t necessarily think he’s the best available candidate for President, but he wouldn’t be a disaster by a long shot. And I do think he’d learn and grow while in the office. However, for the time being, I lean strongly towards Romney, primarily due to his impressive private sector experience (won’t be inclined to assume that government is the solution to all problems), combined with his strong performance with the SLOC which was really a public sector position. And his Mormon good ol’ boys network would be effective in making sure things get done in many arenas.

[CDHart]

Don't you just love the word "allowed" when it comes to government using it? I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Carolyn