How does one define "firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"? That sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
But if we decided that the founding fathers never envisioned Fully Automatic Printing Presses capable of rapid release of papers - at rates thousands of time faster that the printing presses that were available when the 1st Amendment was crafted, perhaps some minor "prior restraint" might be justifiable. Remember the riots after the 4 police who beat Rodney King were found not guilty of attempted murder. The riots were in large part due to the lies and mis-information by the media. The failure of the media to "highlight" Rodney King's past crimes/conduct, and the conduct during the 100+ MPH chase. His resistance to orders to lie still, and the evidence that he might have been on drugs weren't properly published. The full evidence that showed the police weren't bigoted or racist wasn't revealed regularly. The TV media showed only the fragment of the video of the beating, but not the segment that showed King throwing the police off him like they were rag dolls. A properly informed public might not have rioted. That would have saved over 50 lives, and would have saved over 1/2 billion dollars in damages. So in light of the "group right" of Free Speech, perhaps a little governmental oversight to ensure information is slowly released, subject to editing for correctness .... any news stories deemed potentially inflammatory! Wouldn't the same liberals who want to gut the 2nd Amendment have a cow!! But we might as well sacrifice the 1st Amendment if we aren't going to have a 2nd Amendment.
If I can't have guns to protect me, I might as well have a government controlling the press to prevent further riots!! Maybe a "controlled" media could help reduce crime. Maybe we do need big brother if we can't be allowed to keep and bear arms! Why not!
< / sarcasm >
Mike
The "militia" referred to in the 2nd amendment meant "able bodied men between the ages of 14 and 45", but did not say you had to sell your guns when you hit the big 46.
The 2nd amendment almost didn't make it because some thought it was so basic a right that it didn't need to be included.
I would like to believe (although I'm not holding my breath), that Bush intends to "take a dive" on the "particularly suited" issue. "We studied the issue, and found that no one gun is 'particularly suited' (or unsuited) for crime. The concept was just a new, phony concept dreamed up by gun-grabbers as another excuse. The presence or absence of a bayonet lug or flash hider doesn't make a gun 'particularly suited'".
The "unsuited individuals" has more meaning. If you are in jail, or escaped from jail, you've already lost your rights to lots of things, at least for the duration. Same thing for someone on probation or parole, at least for certain types of crimes. Pay your debt to society, and get all your rights back, including gun rights.
It's the new "restraining orders" that are suspect, because the gun grabbers seem to use them to produce a lifetime ban on charges that may be chickenshit, or even false. It should only be on a temporary basis, until a more serious charge is either prosecuted to conviction, or the whole thing dropped.