Redstate

By Thorley Winston Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Courtesy of Youtube:

I’m not a gun person although I consider myself a staunch RTKBA supporter but three things strike me about this:

1) A lot of Giuliani supporters are predicating their support for Giuliani on what they believe is a pledge from him to let “federalism” resolve a lot of contentious social issues. However the Courts have almost since the beginning upheld Congress’ commerce power as being plenary and absolute and firearms do travel through interstate commerce. It would not be inconsistent for someone who says they believe in federalism to say “but since firearms travel through interstate commerce, Congress can regulate them.” So long as the focus is on the “economic regulation” of an industry, it becomes a matter of Congress’ commerce power rather than a protection in the Bill of Rights such as the Second Amendment.

2) Note that Giuliani’s focus for his lawsuit in on what he considers the practices of the industry rather than people misusing guns. This is key because industry regulations include things like limits on the number of guns that can be sold, requiring that “safer” (and more expensive) “smart guns” be sold, banning the sale of certain types of weapons (e.g. the “assault weapons” ban), or even requiring that the sellers keep records of every weapon (or bullet) that was sold and to whom. If you take the position that this is simply “regulating the practices of an industry,” it’s pretty easy to rationalize that you’re not really putting any restrictions on the rights of gun owners – sort of like how people who want to “tax the rich” never seem to consider how it effects the people who work for the rich.

3) It’s also notable that when Giuliani talks about the “legitimate uses” for firearms, he talks about only “hunting and law enforcement.” One of his key supporters who recently interviewed with Erick on Redstate Radio said that Giuliani merely had different perspective on guns than people in “deer hunting and pheasant hunting country.” If both Giuliani and his “conservative” supporters who are trying to give him credibility with the gun community are talking about it in terms of hunting rather than “personal protection” – what do you suppose the odds are that Giuliani would think that so long as people are able to hunt with guns, it doesn’t “really” infringe on their Second Amendment rights?

As I wrote earlier, I strongly caution against supporting a candidate not because of who he is and what he believes but on what they hope are promises that he will do the opposite. I wrote this not because I think Giuliani is particularly dishonest (I don't) but rather because there is a natural human tendency to believe that one’s own worldview is correct and that people share a common understanding of what things mean. But the truth is that people do disagree on what “federalism” means, to what extent if any the economy should be regulated, and what limits if any should be placed on individual rights.

When Rudy Giuliani talks about these issues, he may use many of the same words you do like “federalism” and “strict constructionist” but they may mean something entirely different to him than the do to you. And if he should become “the Decider,” it will be his worldview not yours that governs.