8 00 eastern to learn more about how small towns changed after the civil war patrick charles, senior next, patrick charles, Senior Historian for the United States airforce, talks about the history of the nra, including changes in gun control and views on the Second Amendment. This interview was recorded at the annual American Historical Association meeting. Pet charles is all former marine and Senior Historian for the u. S. Airport and the author of the book armed in america. Patrick charles. Thank you for being with us on cspan. Mr. Charles thank you, steve. Let me begin with the origin of the National Rifle association. How did it come about and why . Mr. Charles it came back during the civil war. Two officers decided to form the nra based out of new york with two purposes. One was to facilitate and grow longrange rifle ranges and the other was to assist the state National Guards in marksmanship. Just so youially, know, was kind of working to get appropriations from the government and they started off with one organization. They grew to 1700 by 1929. Are, just so you know, there is an english National Rifle association. This is supposed to be the american version. The only thing differentiating start off with was the franchise like model where you could build a rifle club, statewide and you were a nra affiliated rifle club and they would compete in stoughton local , state and local, National Shooting matches. Steve would they recognize the nra now in 2020 . Mr. Charles oh, not at all. The organization was not intended to be political in any way. I think you can say as late as the mid1960s, the heads of not seeanization could what the in array has become today. One, it became a political organization, not focused on mentoring thend national guard. In the 1950s and 1960s, the they did not said want to be a partisan organization. That would be a disservice to the nra and the merck and people. However, we know today they are closely intertwined and bootstrapped with the republican party. It was a patchwork of gun laws back then and today. How does that influence or the nra . E role of mr. Charles it depends on when youre talking about. Early on, the federal government was not involved in gun laws at all. They were state, primarily local. Dealers,s would govern shooting guns. The local laws would govern minor to the town. That continued until the 1930s when the federal government when did get involved. Even then, when those laws were argued at thea time the state should be controlling those decisions. Mr. Charles so which states past the first laws and win when . The first laws and mr. Charles thats a difficult question. You can go back to the colonies the 17th century theres a couple gun laws on the books. But those laws are about gunpowder storage, win, where. Ou cannot carry a gun how far you could fire away from a settled population. You could not fire or shoot a rifle within a quartermile of account. Those involved mostly into carry laws, and ms. To late night 19th century, laws for dealers ,min minors. That is the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. Steve which rings as to your book. Can you talk about how it has evolved over the last 100plus years . Mr. Charles yes. Is not as we know it today. If you look at the documents it pertains to the federalized militia debate, the constitution in states. Who have the power of the militia . The federal government . Who had the power of the militia . No, it came to the states, we want for control. The concern for the constitution in 1787 and when it was ratified in 1789, was the state militia. The Second Amendment is more or. Ess a reflection of the fear thats not to save the Second Amendment did not have an individual right component or was not linked to an individual having a gun. The conception of liberty the others understood was in order to have liberty you need to fight for that liberty. You needed to train for that liberty. That was the concept of a wellregulated militia. That is not the same as an armed citizenry. It really is welltrained. The two most important aspects of the militia was training and how they move their legs. This is about the economy of force with rifle spectrum. There was not accuracy with those rifles. Turning those forces in a way that could effectuate an economy of force. Beginning in the 19th century, the is when we begin to get individual conception of the right to bear arms, those were guided by state Supreme Court decisions. Gunone would challenge a law or something would come up with the court with a criminal law and slowly, but surely, every not everyone, but virtually every state recommended a right to bear arms, but that right was severely limited i what we call the state police power. Which gives the state the ability to legislate health, safety, and welfare, and that being shot by bullets. That continued to hold sway. That goes into the early 20s century. Understood that interpretation as well. And then when the Supreme Court on the second limit in detail, there were two or three Supreme Court decisions in the 19th century, but nothing in depth this is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue and its very cryptic. But courts after the supreme ,ourt issued that decision saying it was a collective right, not an individual right. That remained to be status quo, at least legally speaking. The average person in the street did not think that was the case, it legally speaking, until right tonized as the keep and bear arms distinct from the militia and that includes the right to selfdefense. Steve in the 1930s is when we started to see gun control in this country . Modernrles i think more as you know it today. The categories that are being regulated in the 1920s and 1930s are really no different than the 19th century, but you start to see more modern laws and regulation. They are becoming more comprehensive, if that answers your question. Steve you said the formation, the genesis of the nra postcivil war, how they view the Second Amendment then versus today . Are there differences . Mr. Charles yeah. I think when the nra is first established in 1871, it is going to be a hard find to see them talking about the Second Amendment. Its really the turn of the 20th they Start Talking above the Second Amendment and it is almost always in the context of being 1911 new york law, the first law to require someone to get a permit to purchase and own a handgun. Before that there were no such a brief chicago law. I believe they enacted their law in 1908. It did not state on the books for long. New york was the epicenter of the United States. In terms of the epicenter of the toulation, there were 50 100, 50 to 100 in the city at that time. If you add them up, it will still be in new york city. That is how Central New York was at that time. Obviously, they had a big fear. Is organized and chartered out of new york. That is where most of their members are. That is why are where they are headquartered up. That is when they Start Talking about the Second Amendment, more and passing than in depth. Steve in the 19th century we have robber barons. In the 20th centuries, in the 20th century we had mob violence and gang violence. How did that affect it in this century . Mr. Charles theres an interesting thing about the mafia and gang violence. I think everyone in the United States agreed there was a problem. Theres no disagreement there. The only disagreement was more or less in terms of how do you solve that problem . There was i a movement in the United States that said the government was passing too many laws to catch the criminals. And that extended to firearms. ,o when they are debating that while everyone agrees gangsters are a problem including the nra, argues that maybe these gun laws are being financed by gangsters and the gangster secretly want them because then we, he lawabiding citizens, will not be able to fight back. Then you have people supporting gun control at that time, individuals more so than a movement, but their argument is the reverse of that. Well, maybe the gangsters are financing the sportsman the so theyn and the nra can continue doing crimes as usual. No one disagrees that gangsters on at the are on the epicenter of why these gun laws come to the four. Steve when was the pivot point . Was it world war ii, postworld war ii . It wasrles i would say 1932. 1932 is when the nra backed legislation known as the uniform statems act, which was legislation that was supposed to be enacted everywhere, as a way to make the laws uniform. And in doing so, that would protect sportsmen. From indianaling to ohio, if ohio has stricter laws, i would not be harmed because the laws are you one. The uniform firearms act was so convinced thera new York Assembly to enact the legislation. Not a super majority that could override a veto. Then governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation. When roosevelt vetoed the reallytion, the nra ramped up its efforts. It started to put out ads for recruitment, started putting in the margin of american objectives, and the first three relate to fighting firearms legislation. That is the genesis of what the the 1930s,pirit in the attorney general of the knew theates new nra was fighting firearms legislation. The American Public did not. It was not until jfk was assassinated that the mayor can public gets a wakeup call and introduced the nra we have come to know today, one that fights firearms laws. Marine, andid a expert in firearms laws . Marinerles well, the was stationed in shanghai and i got the International Affairs bug and George Washington and George Washington is probably the most Political University in the country. , and one thing led to another to lead myself back to the air force and. Istory, but im very fortunate very lucky to have served. Steve we mentioned your book at the top of our conversation. The title is armed in america. If you could select one talking point, one take away from your book, what is it . Mr. Charles what i hope people take away is the right to arms as we know it today or discuss it today is not the same as it ago, 100ssed 200 years years ago, or even 50 years ago. It has evolved. It has changed. I hope the other take away is the law has changed to adapt to the environment, to gun violence, to changes in technology and whatnot. Youever your side is if are progun or progun control or just in the middle somewhere, the big take away take away way is there are different perceptions of it. There are different perspectives as well. Dr. Charles steve charles, Senior Historian. We thank you for being with us. Mr. Charles thank you, steve. Week, congress is in recess and American History tv will be on cspan3 and in primetime. We are visiting five ec area tc areato interview museums to interview officials. This coming were visiting area museums to interview officials. On cspan3. Amarilloties tour of theinues with a visit to native lifeways of the planes exhibition. Is biller hi, my name , and i have the associate di