Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’

[Law abider]

New Yorkers, when will you replace Mr Rangel. He is the problem along with Mr. Schumer. Mr Rangle suggested to a reporter that his constituents don't need to carry a gun but he deserves armed security.
Tuesday night, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) was speaking with a reporter from the Daily Caller about a recently exposed scandal involving some members of the NYPD selling access to concealed carry permits when he laughingly stated that his constituents “just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.”

When asked about the armed security protecting him and the rest of the members of Congress, he answered, “I think we deserve, need to be protected down here.”


http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/22/rangel-no-guns-for-americans-but-i-need-police-protection-audio/

 

[davidmcbeth]

The ideas of this wacko supports the argument that we need spicy guns.

NY folks love this guy .... death will take him soon, he's old.

 

[color of law]

That's OK, Charlie Rangel's self imposed tax exempt status and his self imposed amnesty for his back taxes that are due and owing is proper since being a congressman and war hero.

 

[OC for ME]

Gun ban in NYC is not a federal issue...Sullivan Act.

 

[Law abider]

That's OK, Charlie Rangel's self imposed tax exempt status and his self imposed amnesty for his back taxes that are due and owing is proper since being a congressman and war hero.

The new York reps and senators and the California reps and senators want all other states to follow the laws of their states!

 

[Grapeshot]

the new york reps and senators and the california reps and senators want all other states to follow the laws of [strike]their states![/strike] ny and california

fify

 

[rushcreek2]

This point of view has been around for at least 180 years...

In 1836....shortly after the Alamo.....and the Battle of San Jacinto....one of the delegates to the first Texas Constitution Convention ...voiced his opinion ...that...

"In a civilized democracy no man should feel the necessity to go armed against against a fellow citizen".

Needless to say his suggestion was dismissed as evidence of insanity....

 

[solus]

This point of view has been around for at least 180 years...

In 1836....shortly after the Alamo.....and the Battle of San Jacinto....one of the delegates to the first Texas Constitution Convention ...voiced his opinion ...that...

"In a civilized democracy no man should feel the necessity to go armed against against a fellow citizen".

Needless to say his suggestion was dismissed as evidence of insanity....

needless to say...ya'll got a cite for that there statement???

i would hate to dismiss it as evidence of insanity...

ya know what i mean...

ipse

 

[Maverick9]

I think she'd be as excited to appoint this guy. I think she owes him. (j/k):

 

[utbagpiper]

Gun ban in NYC is not a federal issue...Sullivan Act.

Not a federal issue...YET. But it should be.

2nd and 14th amendments. You know, kind of like the 1st and 14th, 4th and 14th, 5th and 14th....

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

A federal Court of Appeals panel has rejected a constitutional challenge to New York's handgun licensing law, a ruling state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is hailing as a major victory for public safety.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...concealed-weapon-permits-blog-entry-1.1692852

Does this qualify as a federal issue?

The American Constitutional Society, a national group that tracks constitutional and legal issues, recently held a seminar on Heller and McDonald and heard from experts who claim 200 federal court decisions have come down since then, and not one has overturned a gun regulation law on the basis of the Second Amendment.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...hallenge-new-yorks-pistol-permit-law-20150817

It will be good if this suit gains the status as buttressing Heller & McDonald.