John Lott: Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record

[calsdad]

The liar is trying to bob and weave again:

Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record

by John R. Lott, Jr.

Rudy Giuliani had a monumental task last Friday. Going before the NRA, Giuliani wanted to alleviate gun owners' fears that he would take away their ability to use guns to defend themselves.

Some media suggested an even more lofty goal: “it is possible that the NRA would endorse Giuliani.”

Surely Giuliani said many comforting things. He talked about the Second Amendment protecting individual rights. And he now disavows the lawsuits against the gun makers – something that he himself initiated, but that he says went off course and went in directions with which he disagreed.

For good measure, Giuliani also invoked his time in the Reagan Justice Department a quarter of a century ago and Reagan’s defense of gun rights as evidence of his own support.

For many, the bottom line is, as the New York Times claimed, "that he opposes new restrictions on gun ownership."

The Boston Globe interpreted Giuliani as pledging "he would punish gun-toting criminals harshly while leaving law-abiding gun owners alone."

But this is the same Giuliani who six years ago supported Federal gun licensing and seven years ago said that 86 to 88 percent of the guns sold in the United States should not be sold because gun makers "would have to know that they are supplying an illegal market." This is the same person who sued gun makers so that the city could recoup its costs of dealing with crime, that openly broke with the Reagan administration during congressional testimony on a gun control bill.

Some of those present at the NRA meeting were moved by Giuliani’s comments. Giuliani apparently had at least neutralized their concerns. Yet, a careful reading of Giuliani’s speech finds it filled with caveats.

Take his answer to a question about gun control:

"My position is the law should be left the way it is now. Given the level of crime in this country, I think the emphasis and the energy should be spent on enforcing the laws that presently exist, and if changes in the law are necessary later, that'll respond to other social conditions.

"I think the single most important thing that the next president has to do is to organize an effort in the Department of Justice and with state and local law enforcement to work in a cooperative way to enforce the laws that presently exist. After we do that, and we see the impact of that, then we can take a look at whether new laws are necessary; they may or may not be. "

"Given the level of crime in this country?" Would his position change if crime increased? It would certainly seem so. Surely Giuliani has frequently claimed that gun control reduces crime. Indeed, he has claimed that most of the reduction in New York City’s crime rate during the 1990s was due to gun control: "the single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society...the more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up."

Giuliani is justifiably proud of New York City’s dramatic reductions in violent crime during the 1990s, but his claim that "the single biggest" factor was taking guns off the street is weak, to say the least. There is no academic research by economists or criminologists that indicates that gun control mattered at all.

There are other more obvious explanations, especially the massive increase in full-time sworn police officers. The number grew from 26,844 in 1990 to 39,779 by 2000, roughly five times faster than in other big cities. New York City also improved its police department by raising hiring standards and increasing officer pay,

What about Giuliani’s statement, "After we do that . . . we can take a look at whether new laws are necessary"? The only restriction that this implies is that the Federal and state governments must first do what they can to reduce crime. After that, all restrictions are off.

Giuliani’s statement on lawsuits against gun makers is no more comforting. He now disavows the lawsuits because of "twists and turns I disagree with." But there is absolutely no mention about what these changes were. His own statements, when originally announcing New York City’s lawsuit, contained a laundry list of complaints. Indeed, his claims seemed the same as those in other city lawsuits.

Possibly, Giuliani’s opinions on the Second Amendment were really affected by Judge Laurence Silberman’s recent court decision striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban. Silberman did make a persuasive case that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right. But Giuliani has frequently pointed out that constitutionally protected rights still allow “reasonable” regulations to accomplish some other goal, such as public safety.

Despite the assurances of the press, Giuliani clearly did not say that he would oppose new gun laws. Compared to what conservatives call the “just about flawless performance” by Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s presentation just didn’t cut it.

With the nation at war, Republicans possibly have more important things to care about than gun control. But Giuliani’s image as a straight shooter risks being damaged by all the bobbing and weaving that he is doing over gun control.

This article was originally published at Fox News.


September 28, 2007

John Lott [send him mail] is the author of Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003).

 

[matt1956]

He's a lying POS.

WHatever lies he can tell to make it good.

What is funny is all of these anti gun guys, Rudy, Mit, McCain now saying they're pro 2A and individual rights... I wonder if that is because the MAJORITY of the nation still sees it that way and it's just these effed up parts like MA and NY that are so freaking backwards.

Question is... were they lying then, or now?

I would say both

 

[csharpdev]

People can change. Some people if you prove them wrong will change their view. What you can never really know is if the person has truly changed their view as a result of new knowledge or if they've just changed their facade.

5 years ago if you asked me if I'd support an assault weapons ban I would have said yes. I didn't own guns then and didn't know much about them. I knew there was a civilian version of the M16 (AR-15, didn't know what it was called), if you had asked me if the the civilian version of the military M16 should be banned I would have said no it's the civilian version why would you ban it. 5 years ago I didn't associate assault weapon with semi automatic rifles, I now know better.

I also understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment now. People can change. Now considering that a politician is someone who lies for political gain (my definition), I don't know if I'd trust that he has joined our side, but one can always hope... it's a good thing when people wake up and smell the gun powder.

heck if the polls showed that 80% of people supported RKBA, even Hillary would join our side.

 

[FPrice]

heck if the polls showed that 80% of people supported RKBA, even Hillary would join our side.

If you believe that Hilary would join our side for any other reason than to buy votes and would not turn against us after being elected, there is no hope for you. And it's the same with these lying supposedly pro-gun Republicans.

 

[csharpdev]

If you believe that Hilary would join our side for any other reason than to buy votes and would not turn against us after being elected, there is no hope for you. And it's the same with these lying supposedly pro-gun Republicans.

Oh I know that is the only reason she would join our side and she would only hold true to that until day 1 of her 2nd term... unless she really liked her VP and wanted him/her to have a chance in hell of getting elected after her.

Everything the Clinton's do is calculated for political gain. She'd support us for as long as she thought it would boost her political power.

 

[kevin9]

People can change. Some people if you prove them wrong will change their view. What you can never really know is if the person has truly changed their view as a result of new knowledge or if they've just changed their facade...

Yes, people do change their minds. I would suggest the big difference between those that really do, like you, and those that don't, like Mitt and Rudy, is that they, like you, will come right out and say they have changed their minds. They'll say "I was wrong before" rather than try to bob & weave, or say "What I meant to say was...", etc. AFAIK none of the RINO candidates have clearly repudiated their previous anti-RKBA actions or statements. Until they do they're just lying to try to buy my vote, and that ain't working.

 

[matt1956]

I would have to agree with what you said csharpdev mainly because several years ago, I was also ignorant to firearms.

And if you said to me, no one needs a 30 round mag, I would probabley agreed.

Now knowing what I do, I know that those questions are as dumb as asking why do I need more then 5 suits. what difference does it make?

people can change with education, that I will agree.

But I still think Rudy is a lying POS that is only doing so to win the minds of the majority of the republican party.

 

[Jay G]

I'll go on record right here and now and state that if the NRA backs Giuliani I'll cancel my membership.

 

[drgrant]

People can change. Some people if you prove them wrong will change their view. What you can never really know is if the person has truly changed their view as a result of new knowledge or if they've just changed their facade.

The thing is though, Rudy has built-in fascist tendencies. You
can't change things like that. He's showed it over and over
again. Compared to the other guy's running for "R" he has gun
owner blood on his hands. The others might be able to save
their 2A spiel by apologizing and kissing ass, etc, but in the eyes
of a lot of gun owners, Rudy is a complete douchebag who would
have to do a LOT (read: actions speak louder than words) to
change folks impression of him.

I guess what I'm getting at is, it's a little too late for an apology
from this douchebag, after he's already used canister upon
canister of napalm on gun owners and the industry in general.

-Mike

 

[csharpdev]

One thing Rudy mentioned in one of the debates I watched was that gun control should be left up to the states. Now being from MA I don't think it should be left up to the states cus I know what my state will do and is doing. But if he truly believes that gun control isn't the business of the federal government, perhaps due to his recent "enlightenment" of the 2nd Amendment, is that still a bad thing.

There are some things best left to the local cities and towns to solve, some things best dealt with at the county/state level and a few things best dealt with at the Federal level. Rudy was a mayor of a city, the vast majority of problems should be left to the local governments to deal with. I think the big question is does Rudy know what solutions he needs to leave in NY City and not take to Washington.

If we had a total anti gun person in the white house who responded to a gun control bill saying "I agree with this bill but I cannot sign it because it is unconstitutional and out of scope of the Federal Government", I would applaud that person and I would vote reelect them.

I'm certainly not endorsing Rudy. I've only been a gun owner since 2005 and only interested in politics for about a year, so I'm a lot less familiar with the actions and history of most of our politicians. I not only respect but often rely on the opinions of those whom I share similar beliefs with who have been following politics a lot longer than I.

 

[drgrant]

One thing Rudy mentioned in one of the debates I watched was that gun control should be left up to the states.

This is the standard RINO cop out- they say this so they can
effectively dodge the question... not much different than Bush
saying "I'll sign the AWB if it makes it to my desk." At best
it's them going out of the way to not have an opinion on an
issue. At worst its his crafty way of dodging the question
so that he can't get called out on his bullshit when he reneges on
a promise he made down the road. He knows that if he
harps about being pro gun heavily, then votes for a new AWB,
let's say, he and his party will get punished down the road... he
knows this and that's why he's dodging the issue.

Does Rudy think that the other parts of the constitution should
be left up to the states, as well? It gives me warm and
fuzzy feelings, for example, that say NJ's corrupt government
should only obey parts of the constitution that it feels
suits the needs of their state....

Now being from MA I don't think it should be left up to the states cus I know what my state will do and is doing. But if he truly believes that gun control isn't the business of the federal government, perhaps due to his recent "enlightenment" of the 2nd Amendment, is that still a bad thing.

Federal gun laws are bad, and many should be repealed, but
many states have arguably FAR worse laws that go above and
beyond what the federal template does. There are some
obnoxious federal laws but the anti states (NY, NJ, MA, MD, IL,
CA, HI, etc) outdo the feds in terms of heinous shit by like
a factor of 10.

I guess it depends on what one's view of federalism
is, to some degree. One part of me says that the feds
shouldn't regulate guns at all, period end, ever, no laws, and
the states would have as many or as few laws as they
wanted. Problem is this creates obvious logistical
challenges.... that trunkload of machineguns and suppressors
which is legal in NH and ME is all of a sudden not legal in
MA, etc. Constitutional rights should not have to be
surrendered just by crossing a state border within the
same country.

I for one think that this is a case where the feds SHOULD be
using an ugly stick on the states in regards to the 2nd
amendment. Since it is a constitutional right, it should apply
equally to ALL americans, regardless of what state they live
in.

-Mike

 

[kevin9]

I for one think that this is a case where the feds SHOULD be
using an ugly stick on the states in regards to the 2nd
amendment.

Jo right there!

+1

 

[GSG]

"...leave it up to each state to decide."

What makes MA different from FL or AK or VT? Is my life less valuable in MA? Am I more dangerous to other people because I live in a large city? How does fewer legal guns being carried make Chicago safer than Tampa?

I propose that each state be allowed to apply it's interpretation of the 3rd amendment to it's citizens. In Mass., if you pass the permit process, take a "non-housing of a soldier in your house safety course" and are deemed suitable by your local CLEO, than you can live in a house free of the military. Anyone for it?

I think there's issues with the gun laws at every level of government, but if we were only held to the federal standard we'd have a lot less bitching to do on these boards, let me tell you. But more importantly, they're rights. The bill of RIGHTS. Not wants, dreams, hopes, political vagaries or elitist delusions, but RIGHTS. Tell me one good reason why any one of those basic rights isn't good enough for anyone based on their geography within this great country.

Rant over.

 

[KMaurer]

Does Rudy think that the other parts of the constitution should be left up to the states, as well? It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings, for example, that say NJ's corrupt government should only obey parts of the constitution that it feels suits the needs of their state....

Whatever parts are included in Rudy's "state/local option" list, we can at least conclude safely that abortion isn't.

The United States Constitution --- Void where prohibited by law.

Ken

 

[csharpdev]

There is a thread here somewhere about the Parker vs DC ruling and IIRC someone had stated that the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated and even if SCOTUS rules in our favor it won't effect laws in MA. I've also read places that The Constitution only limits the powers of the federal government. So based on that the states should be free to do what they want.

The 2nd Amendment should apply fully to all regardless of what state they live in and I hope someday it will.

Even if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to be a right of states to form militias (which I don't agree with) I'd still argue that even with that interpretation that all Federal Gun control laws are Unconstitutional. Any Federal Gun control law would infringe on a States ability to form a militia.

 

[jcr]

the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated and even if SCOTUS rules in our favor it won't effect laws in MA. I've also read places that The Constitution only limits the powers of the federal government.

An early 1800s court case said that the rights protected in the BoR were protected from Federal government action.

After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment was ratified to correct that. The intention was that states would not be allowed to violate rights listed in the BoR.

But there were still racists in the judiciary. They found in a decision that "privileges and immunities" mentioned in the 13thA didn't mean what everyone who ratified it thought they meant. Therefore, states could again violate the rights of the people.

Then the judiciary realized that the results of this wasn't so good. They began taking cases concerning separate rights in the BoR, and declaring that another phrase, "due process", is what would protect that right. This process is referred to as "incorporating the right" against state violation.

Most parts of the BoR by now have been so incorporated. The Second Amendment is one that has yet to be addressed. This is, in part, because there has never been a Federal case that clearly explains the right. DC v Heller (was Parker v. DC), may be that case.

If the SCOTUS upholds the view of the lower court, then challenges to state court decisions would arise to incorporate the 2ndA protections.

This whole area of law is further complicated by the fact that many states have their own state constitution that protects some form of a "right to keep and bear arms" which ought to keep those states from passing onerous gun-control laws.

The results on this has been spotty. Massachusetts has an explict protection that the 1976 SJC declared doesn't mean what it plainly says. (A more recent SJC found a right in our Declaration of Rights that somehow had been hidden over 200 years.)

--jcr

"Massachusetts: Defining liberal, activist judges for over 30 years!"

 

[drgrant]

There is a thread here somewhere about the Parker vs DC ruling and IIRC someone had stated that the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated and even if SCOTUS rules in our favor it won't effect laws in MA.

While this is true, the ruling could still set a precedent and open
some doors, and provide a bit of insulation. (at least at the
fed level)

I've also read places that The Constitution only limits the powers of the federal government. So based on that the states should be free to do what they want.

Well, this is a contradiction with the above- when amendments
are incorporated, they ARE binding on state governments.

The 2nd Amendment should apply fully to all regardless of what state they live in and I hope someday it will.

Agreed. Also remember that, effectually, the parchment is
just a re-iteration of rights endowed by the "creator"; whoever
you wish that to be. What this means is that basically any anti gun
laws are just about always wrong, at least from a morality perspective; for
practical purposes that is another story.

Even if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to be a right of states to form militias (which I don't agree with) I'd still argue that even with that interpretation that all Federal Gun control laws are Unconstitutional. Any Federal Gun control law would infringe on a States ability to form a militia.

There's more than enough historical precedent out there that
indicates that is not what the 2nd was for. There's even a
very good writeup about this by some anti at harvard stating that
trying to attack the premise of the 2nd as being anything other
than designed to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear
arms is basically a bogus argument. His point was that if
the antis are going to attack public gun ownership, that trying to
nitpick supposed flaws in the 2nd amendment is a really dumb way
to do it- all this BS about "militia" etc is a bogus argument when
you look at the framers intent and other historical precedent at
the time.

It would surprise and alarm the shit out of me if SCOTUS talks for
more than 2 seconds about the militia clause. The militia
clause argument is about the dumbest thing going. The only
thing that's more of a fraud is Scientology.

Edit: Did you ever notice that most of the time anti gun groups stay
away from this topic? The reason is, because if they know they're
dragged into 2nd amendment grounds, that they would always lose the
debate. This is why they choose the "emo" sales pitch instead, focusing
in on "the blood in the streets of our children" and all that hyperbolic bullshit.


-Mike

 

[csharpdev]

Also remember that, effectually, the parchment is
just a re-iteration of rights endowed by the "creator"; whoever
you wish that to be. What this means is that basically any anti gun
laws are just about always wrong, at least from a morality perspective; for
practical purposes that is another story.

Agreed. What is surprising is how few know this.

We the people retain all rights not explicitly granted to the government. If the 2nd amendment didn't exist we would still have a right to arm ourselves for our own defense.

Now if the government takes away a right and we don't stop them have we then granted the government that right? Unfortunately we've reached a point where we are out gunned by our government, we've slid down this slippery slope since 1934.