Robert J. Spitzer is an American political scientist.
Contents |
Spitzer attended high school in New Hartford, New York. He received a Bachelor of Arts (summa cum laude) degree from SUNY Fredonia (1975), a Master of Arts degree (1978) and a Doctor of Philosophy degree (1980) from Cornell University.
Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Cortland. He is the author of thirteen 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,[1] and Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide.[2] He is the author of The Politics of Gun Control (ISBN 978-0-87289-417-4; fourth ed., 2008), 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 six years of implementation, it prevented about 600,000 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.[3]
Spitzer argues against the individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment, and instead holds with the court view that "the Second Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia".[4]