Gun Control

  • July 10, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    The New York Times features a debate over whether the Supreme Court has become too powerful.

    At The Atlantic, Russell Berman discusses how a bipartisan consensus in Congress could lead to meaningful reform of the criminal justice system.

    Andrew Prokop reports for Vox on the Florida Supreme Court ruling against partisan gerrymandering.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Walter Shapiro considers what gun control advocates can learn from South Carolina.

    Steven Mazie contends at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog that liberals may find themselves less satisfied with Supreme Court rulings next term. 

    Fili Sagapolutele and Jennifer Sinco Kelleher report for the Associated Press that American Samoa is holding out against the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling.

  • July 9, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, ACS Board member Linda Greenhouse argues that the Supreme Court has not taken a liberal turn this year.

    Andrew Pincus explains the next challenge to President Obama’s executive action on immigration at Talking Points Memo.

    David A. Graham reports for The Atlantic that the Baltimore Mayor has fired the city’s police commissioner.

    At The New Yorker, Amy Davidson considers what Dred Scott has to do with the decision in the marriage equality case.

    Frank Norris reports for NPR that a settlement in a Kansas lawsuit will create a new standard for gun seller liability for dealers who sidestep mandatory background checks.

  • May 18, 2015
    BookTalk
    Guns Across America
    Reconciling Gun Rules and Rights
    By: 
    Robert J. Spitzer

    by Robert J. Spitzer. He is the Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at SUNY Cortland. Spitzer is the author most recently of Guns Across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and Rights, published by Oxford University Press.

    The contemporary American gun debate has been cast as a battle between two opposing, mutually exclusive principles: gun laws and gun rights. The struggle between these two is invariably portrayed as a zero-sum game—that the gain of one is a loss for the other. Yet our own history tells a different story, one that contains at least two important lessons. The first is that, throughout most of American history, gun rights and gun laws existed hand in hand. The second is that, in many respects, guns were more heavily regulated in our country’s first 300 years than in the last thirty years.

    While gun ownership is as old as America, so are gun laws. Early gun laws covered every imaginable type of regulation, even including registration and outright gun bans. In fact, the first “gun grabbers” were not 1960’s Chablis-drinking liberals, but rum-guzzling pioneers of the 1600s. Early gun laws restricted gun ownership and possession to Native Americans, slaves, indentured servants, vagrants, non-Protestants, those who refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the government, felons, foreigners and numerous recreational restrictions. Early laws also regulated the manufacture, inspection, and sale of firearms, as well as gun storage and discharge restrictions. Others prohibited not only the firing of firearms in or near towns, but firing after dark, on Sundays, in public places, near roads and bridges or while under the influence of alcohol.

    Among the earliest and most prolific laws were those restricting or barring the carrying of concealed weapons (these restrictions typically applied to pistols as well as certain types of knives). As early as 1686, New Jersey barred the wearing of concealable weapons in public because, according to the law, “it induced great Fear and Quarrels.” In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons. The restriction applied both to merchants and private citizens, and its stated purpose was “to guard and protect the citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” By the end of the 18th century, four states had enacted gun carry restrictions. In the 19th century, 37 states did so and another four states followed suit in the early 20th century.

  • December 3, 2014

    by Christopher Durocher.

    Six years ago, in Heller v. District of Columbia, a divided Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. This decision called into question the viability of gun-safety regulations across the country, including in high-crime urban areas in which the need to address gun violence is particularly acute.  Just this past July, a federal district court judge in DC concluded, “In light of Heller [and its] progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.” It’s not so clear, however, that Supreme Court precedent or the Second Amendment, itself, require the rejection of this and other gun-safety regulations.

    In the ACS Issue Brief “The Constitutional Case for Limiting Public Carry,” Professor Lawrence Rosenthal of Chapman University Fowler School of Law examines the Second Amendment’s historical context and concludes that, even accepting an originalist reading that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to bear arms, the drafters of the Second Amendment anticipated the need for and value of gun-safety regulations. Far from proscribing regulation of firearms, the drafters understood that regulation was appropriate, including the types of restrictions on open and concealed public carry that cities throughout the United States have adopted.

  • May 29, 2014

    by Charles Withers

    In its decision in Hall v. Florida, the Supreme Court replaced the controversial term “mental retardation” with "intellectual disability" to describe someone with limited mental functioning. Tony Mauro at Legal Times notes how advocates for those with intellectual disabilities are praising the Court for abandoning the controversial term.

    In an op-ed for The New York Times, Joe Nocera highlights the recent killing spree by Elliot Rodger, whose horrific actions left numerous victims injured and six others killed. In his article, Nocera examines Michael Waldman’s The Second Amendment: A Biography and the growing inclination to elevate an individual’s right to bear arms over the public good.

    ACS board member Linda Greenhouse writes in a The New York Times op-ed that polarization is not the only problem facing the Robert’s Court, but also “that it’s too often simply wrong.” 

    At Balkinization, Joey Fishkin and Willy Forbath provide an abstract for The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution.