Political operatives within the Giuliani campaign have decided to go on the offensive concerning the Mayor's record while Chief Executive for NYC. Giuliani has taken a beating of late from his Republican competitors concerning the style and substance of the Giuliani administration.
Several items of interest have come to the surface concerning Giuliani's years as Mayor, including charges that he was a 'little dictator' and tended to be rather callous toward some individual rights.
Giuliani, of course, successfully trampled upon the citizens' right to bear arms in his crusade to reign in the city's horrible crime problem. Apparently the fact that Giuliani's anti-crime crusade was successful in drastically reducing the amount of violent crime within the city has led some to believe that the ends justify the means, i.e., that if robbing law-abiding citizens of their rights results in a drastic reduction in crime, then fine and dandy.
This would seem to be the tactic employed by the Giuliani campaign to attempt to short-circuit the widespread criticism of the Mayor's record on Constitutional rights--show how successfully he was able to reduce violent crime and make the city safer.
Interestingly, one of the main targets of the new Giuliani offensive is none other than unannounced GOP candidate Fred Thompson.
Obviously Thompson's consistent and strong support for Second Amendment rights, and his harsh criticism of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aggressive pursuit of out-of-state gun dealers that operate entirely within the laws of their own particular states, are simply too much for the Giuliani campaign to ignore.
Giuliani's political operatives used Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg to go on the offensive concerning former Mayor Giuliani's record...and to launch an attack on Thompson for suggesting that Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani have been wrong to mount an assault on a Constitutional right in order to fight crime.
As a long-time attorney who knows the ins and outs of Constitutional law, Thompson has been highly critical of Bloomberg's use of the Courts in the state of New York to sue out of state gun dealers over the fact that some of their products wound up on the streets of the Big Apple and were used in committing crimes.
Taking Bloomberg's logic at face value, one wonders why, for example, the Mayor has not also initiated lawsuits against, say, whiskey manufacturers in Tennessee and Kentucky due to the deaths of citizens at the hands of drunk drivers who consumed out of state whiskey.
Apparently the Giuliani campaign felt that Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg was a foreshadowing of things to come, when Thompson would launch into a major attack against Giuliani for his assault on Second Amendment rights in the city when he was Mayor.
Thus, the Giuliani campaign went on the offensive, attempting to make the case that under the circumstances, i.e., high crime in New York City, the Mayor was justified in attacking Constitutional rights. Obviously Giuliani also believes that the present Bloomberg power-grab, trampling all over the boundaries of jurisdictions and separation of powers, is a proper response to gun violence at the hands of lawless thugs.
The glaring question that arises is that, given Giuliani's rationale for either weakening or suspending Constitutional rights in special situations, how, then, would he respond to a critical national emergency, such as a category 5 hurricane directly hitting the northeastern corridor from NYC to Boston, which is a mega-population center?
More critically, how would Giuliani respond to a terrorist attack, such as a dirty bomb erupting in a major metropolitan area?
Would he, as President, declare Martial Law? And if so, would that include confiscation of firearms?
After all, this is precisely what the government did in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Innocent, defenseless citizens were forced to turn over their guns, even as looting and mayhem erupted, and even as the government failed to come to the aid of its citizens, at the local, state, and national levels.
If Giuliani could so easily discard Second Amendment rights in a 'special situation' such as NYC's crime problem, then how much more easily would he discard that Amendment, and other Amendments, such as freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, in the event of a major national emergency?
These questions are of no insignificant import, for the answers go directly to the heart of the nature of the United States of America as envisioned by the Framers in the Constitution.
The Framers insisted on the Second Amendment precisely because they considered the possibility of such major national emergencies. They wanted the individual citizens to be able to defend themselves against tyranny of any kind, such as the suspension of rights during a national emergency.
To the Framers this was the ultimate national emergency. Governments that sought to rob the citizens of the rights protected in the Constitution were considered to be tyrannical, and that included our own government.
In other words, if the rights delineated in the Constitution are no good in a national emergency, then the entire rationale for including the protection of those rights in the Constitution is rendered null and void. Why protect rights at all if they can simply be suspended at the very moment they are needed the most?
The fact of the matter is that all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were specified precisely due to the possibility of major national emergencies. The Framers fought for these rights squarely in the middle of a major national emergency when the very future of the young, fledgling Republic was at stake, the point being that if rights are no longer valid at the precise point when they are needed the most, then what good are they?
And it is for this reason that Rudy Giuliani is highly vulnerable on the subject of Constitutional rights and Fred Thompson appears to be the man who can take him on and rip to shreds the Giuliani/Bloomberg notion that rights are expendable in 'special situations.'
Showing posts with label New York City Major Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York City Major Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts
Friday, August 24, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Bloomberg Wins This Gun Battle--For Now
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg scored a victory for gun control groups when a federal judge issued a ruling on Thursday allowing NYC to sue out-of-state gun dealers. The ruling, which was issued by Judge Jack Weinstein, enables the city to proceed with lawsuits against over a dozen out-of-state gun dealers for supposedly contributing to crime in the Big Apple.
It is not as if the Big Apple needs any help from the outside to be one of the biggest crime hubs in the nation. The city manages to do quite well as a center for violent crime quite on its own.
Yet anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals, such as Bloomberg and Judge Weinstein, have always sought to address crime and violence by attacking firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.
It seems that the modus operandi of such gun-grabbers these days is to attack private gun ownership by suing firearms manufacturers and the shops that sell their products, often to the point of forcing them out of business.
As reported previously on The Liberty Sphere, upwards of 85% of American gun manufacturers and gun dealers have been forced out of business by the Feds since the middle of the 1990s. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg wishes to close down the rest by suing their pants off.
The State of New York lost an identical suit against the gun industry in 2003 in the Sturm, Ruger case. A state appellate court threw out the lawsuit, citing the lack of precedent in the state's theory of liability.
The fact that Bloomberg and the City of New York would bring the exact same suit that the state lost a mere four years previously, i.e., 'public nuisance,' is odd to say the least. However, when one considers the circumstances of the present scenario, including the Judge who happens to be involved, the entire matter begins to come into focus.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein is 86 years old. In spite of his age and his senior status in the federal court system, he maintains a full schedule and docket.
Weinstein was appointed to the bench in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the most liberal and corrupt politicians that has ever occupied the White House. In the Johnson tradition of vastly expanding the powers of the federal government and implementing the most far-reaching social experiment ever perpetrated on the populace, i.e., the 'Great Society,' Weinstein has been at the center of judicial activism his entire career.
The Great Society represents the beginning of the notion in America that individuals are never responsible for their own actions. If one is caught and charged with a crime, poverty is to blame, or a thousand other various and sundry excuses.
A dysfunctional family of origin, a disadvantaged upbringing, the lack of proper nutrition during childhood, sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse are all likely suspects. Too bad they can't be charged with crimes.
Thus, the 'victim' mentality took root in America, meaning of course that if I get a lung disease from smoking, I am not to blame at all for smoking. It is the fault of the tobacco companies. If I walk into a crowded restaurant at lunch and open fire, killing 25 people, I am not to blame for my homicidal behavior. I probably had a cruel mother.
And more importantly, it was not I who did the killing. It was the gun I held in my hand.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein is the perfect Judge for perpetual victimhood.
A case in point is the class action lawsuit against the tobacco industry that was thrown out of court by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005. In the 'Simon II Litigation' the Court ruled that Judge Jack Weinstein had exceeded the scope of federal law by certifying a non-opt-out class of smokers who had been diagnosed with smoking-related illnesses.
Weinstein is notorious for his blatantly aggressive use of the class action lawsuit and consumer protection laws in order to resolve toxicity and product liability claims.
Further, the fact that Weinstein mysteriously seems to be the one Judge who rules over these cases is curiously suspicious. As David Hardy points out, every federal district in the country utilizes a random system of assigning cases to judges. Yet this random system seems to have a rather consistent pattern of choosing Weinstein to control product liability litigation.
And it just so happens that Bloomberg gets Weinstein.
Given that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has a history of citing Weinstein for his overzealous stretching of the law, it is a safe bet that the Court will look askance at the present case in question, given that New York State has already lost the exact same lawsuit.
But for now, Bloomberg has won himself a gun battle, thanks to an 86-year old activist Judge who will not allow a tiny matter such as the law get in the way of his rulings.
However, the loss of a battle is not the same as the loss of the entire war.
It is not as if the Big Apple needs any help from the outside to be one of the biggest crime hubs in the nation. The city manages to do quite well as a center for violent crime quite on its own.
Yet anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals, such as Bloomberg and Judge Weinstein, have always sought to address crime and violence by attacking firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.
It seems that the modus operandi of such gun-grabbers these days is to attack private gun ownership by suing firearms manufacturers and the shops that sell their products, often to the point of forcing them out of business.
As reported previously on The Liberty Sphere, upwards of 85% of American gun manufacturers and gun dealers have been forced out of business by the Feds since the middle of the 1990s. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg wishes to close down the rest by suing their pants off.
The State of New York lost an identical suit against the gun industry in 2003 in the Sturm, Ruger case. A state appellate court threw out the lawsuit, citing the lack of precedent in the state's theory of liability.
The fact that Bloomberg and the City of New York would bring the exact same suit that the state lost a mere four years previously, i.e., 'public nuisance,' is odd to say the least. However, when one considers the circumstances of the present scenario, including the Judge who happens to be involved, the entire matter begins to come into focus.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein is 86 years old. In spite of his age and his senior status in the federal court system, he maintains a full schedule and docket.
Weinstein was appointed to the bench in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the most liberal and corrupt politicians that has ever occupied the White House. In the Johnson tradition of vastly expanding the powers of the federal government and implementing the most far-reaching social experiment ever perpetrated on the populace, i.e., the 'Great Society,' Weinstein has been at the center of judicial activism his entire career.
The Great Society represents the beginning of the notion in America that individuals are never responsible for their own actions. If one is caught and charged with a crime, poverty is to blame, or a thousand other various and sundry excuses.
A dysfunctional family of origin, a disadvantaged upbringing, the lack of proper nutrition during childhood, sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse are all likely suspects. Too bad they can't be charged with crimes.
Thus, the 'victim' mentality took root in America, meaning of course that if I get a lung disease from smoking, I am not to blame at all for smoking. It is the fault of the tobacco companies. If I walk into a crowded restaurant at lunch and open fire, killing 25 people, I am not to blame for my homicidal behavior. I probably had a cruel mother.
And more importantly, it was not I who did the killing. It was the gun I held in my hand.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein is the perfect Judge for perpetual victimhood.
A case in point is the class action lawsuit against the tobacco industry that was thrown out of court by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005. In the 'Simon II Litigation' the Court ruled that Judge Jack Weinstein had exceeded the scope of federal law by certifying a non-opt-out class of smokers who had been diagnosed with smoking-related illnesses.
Weinstein is notorious for his blatantly aggressive use of the class action lawsuit and consumer protection laws in order to resolve toxicity and product liability claims.
Further, the fact that Weinstein mysteriously seems to be the one Judge who rules over these cases is curiously suspicious. As David Hardy points out, every federal district in the country utilizes a random system of assigning cases to judges. Yet this random system seems to have a rather consistent pattern of choosing Weinstein to control product liability litigation.
And it just so happens that Bloomberg gets Weinstein.
Given that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has a history of citing Weinstein for his overzealous stretching of the law, it is a safe bet that the Court will look askance at the present case in question, given that New York State has already lost the exact same lawsuit.
But for now, Bloomberg has won himself a gun battle, thanks to an 86-year old activist Judge who will not allow a tiny matter such as the law get in the way of his rulings.
However, the loss of a battle is not the same as the loss of the entire war.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/20/07
Washington, DC (TLS). Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The McCarville Report tells the story of a courageous 17-year-old in Louisiana who shot a perpetrator attempting a car-jacking:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/17-year-old-disarms-shoots-robber.html
McCarville also reports that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has finally come clean about the gun flap at the Capitol involving one of his top aides. As it turns out, Webb's aide was telling the truth--the gun belonged to Webb:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/u-s-senator-says-gun-was-his.html
Snowflakesinhell has a very helpful review of a gun-cleaner called 'Gunzilla.' Read all about it here:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=874
Alphecca writes that New York City Mayor Bloomberg is pulling some more anti-gun shenanigans, this time attempting to defeat the Tiahrt Amendment:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=255
Alphecca also reports that residents of Rutherford County, Tennessee beat back an attempt to prevent them from target practice in their backyards:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=257
Armed and Safe blogs about an Illinois state senator who not only attacks the 2nd Amendment but has now targeted the FIRST Amendment as well:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/attacking-second-amendment-not-enough.html
The McCarville Report tells the story of a courageous 17-year-old in Louisiana who shot a perpetrator attempting a car-jacking:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/17-year-old-disarms-shoots-robber.html
McCarville also reports that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has finally come clean about the gun flap at the Capitol involving one of his top aides. As it turns out, Webb's aide was telling the truth--the gun belonged to Webb:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/u-s-senator-says-gun-was-his.html
Snowflakesinhell has a very helpful review of a gun-cleaner called 'Gunzilla.' Read all about it here:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=874
Alphecca writes that New York City Mayor Bloomberg is pulling some more anti-gun shenanigans, this time attempting to defeat the Tiahrt Amendment:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=255
Alphecca also reports that residents of Rutherford County, Tennessee beat back an attempt to prevent them from target practice in their backyards:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=257
Armed and Safe blogs about an Illinois state senator who not only attacks the 2nd Amendment but has now targeted the FIRST Amendment as well:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/attacking-second-amendment-not-enough.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)