Robert Spitzer (political Scientist) - Career

Career

Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Cortland. He is the author of fourteen books and hundreds of articles, essays, and papers on many topics related to American government. His areas of specialty include the American Presidency, and gun control. His recent books include Saving the Constitution from Lawyers: How Legal Education and Law Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning, and Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide. He is the author of The Politics of Gun Control (ISBN 978-159451987-1; fifth ed., 2012), a book which analyzes the political antecedents and consequences of the controversial issue of gun control. The book examines the history of gun control, the Second Amendment, criminological consequences of guns, the role of interest groups, public opinion, Congress, Presidency, the courts, and the major legislative acts pertaining to gun control, including the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, the Brady Act of 1993, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.

Spitzer views the Brady Act as a notable piece of legislation because, during its first decade of implementation, it prevented about one million handgun purchases nationwide (representing about 2.5 percent of all handgun purchases) from being completed to those with criminal records or mental problems. The measure's enactment was politically significant because it represented a defeat for the politically powerful National Rifle Association. The law was also significant because the higher fees imposed by the act led to the reduction of licensed gun dealers from 300,000 to 100,000.

Prior to and since the United States Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Spitzer argues that history and prior law do not support the individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment reflected in these two recent court rulings. Writing since the two cases were handed down, he said that "the Heller and McDonald rulings have established as a matter of law an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. But although judges can change the law, they cannot change history, and the historical record largely contradicts the bases for these two recent rulings."