To conceal carry. Thanks for being with us on American History tv. Thank you steve. Glad to be here. Let me begin with the origins of the nra, the nice channel rough rifle association. How did the organization come about and why . It came about after the civil war, where there is poor marksmanship by the union soldiers, two officers decided to form and murray based on new york in for two purposes. To facilitate, build and grow longrange rifle ranges and the other one was to assist the state National Guards in marksmanship. The nra initially just so you know, was kind of a working to get appropriations from the government and it started off with one organization in 1700, by 1929. They also are, just so you know, build on, there is an English National rifle association, and there was a practices predecessor by 1859, and this was supposed to be the american version. What different differentiated them was the french let you could start and build a rifle club nuclear statewide and you were affiliated rifle club. Those rifle clips with then compete and state, local and National Shooting matches based on your research the early founders of the nra recognized in Organization Today in 2020. Not at all. The organization was not at all tended to be political in any way. I think you could even say as late as 19 mid 1960s, the heads of that organization could not see what the our nra has become today. The nra became a Political Organization, not focused solely on marksmanship. The second thing i would say is, that in the 19 fifties and early sixties, the nra officials repeatedly said that they did not want to be a partisan organization. That would be a desert disservice to the nra and american people. As we know, there are very closely intertwined and boots trapped in the republican party. Realizing that states right is one of the fundamental formations of our country, but it is a patchwork of gun laws. Back then and today. How does that influence or affect the rule of the nra . Depends on what youre talking about. Early on, the federal government was not involved in gun laws whatsoever. Gun laws were either at a state or local level. Primarily local. State laws would cover brought swats of areas, dealers, concealed carry, minors not shooting guns, but the local laws governed things that were minor to that continued to be the standard rule from until the 1930s, when the federal government got involved with firearms. But even then most of the laws were passed. And the nra argued at the time that state governments should be controlling firearms and making those decisions. Which state or states past the first loss and when . That is a difficult question. If you took in gun laws, it goes back to the colonies back in 18th century. You can find or even earlier 17th centuries. Theres a couple of gun laws in the book. Those laws were basically either about gunpowder storage, where or where you could not carry a gun. What kind of weapons you could or could not have. How far you could fire away from settled population, you could not fire or shoot a rifle within a quarter mile of the town. Those were the early gun laws. It evolved mostly into carry laws, and then around mid to late 19 century, things really start to become modern laws firearms dealers, minors dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns. That is really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. Which goes directly to your book from colonia militias to concealed carry. Can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200 plus years . Yes. You regional right is not what we know until today. If you look at all the documents, everything, all of it points to the idea of the federalized militia debate which was arguments between statesrights and individuals the constitution states who had the power the militia, the federal government and George Washington had the power state militia to control them during war. When it came to the states, there were like no, you want full control. The concern of the constitution when it came in 1787 up until 1789 was the federal government made have there is obviously protections in the constitution to the effect that the Second Amendment was more or less a reflection of that fear. Its not to say they had individually component or was not linked at all to an individual having a gun. The conception of liberty to the founders understood was that in order to understand you needed to fight for that liberty. To train for the liberty. That was an understatement of the wildly regulated militia. Does not mean the same as armed it means welltrained. Multiple militia commentators at that time were talking about the most important, two most important aspects of militia was training, and how they moved their legs. There was a it was not good accuracy with those rifles so it was about turning and maneuvering those forces in a way that could effectuate a force. Beginning in the 19th century is when you start to get individual conception of the right to arms that we more lets talk about today. Those were really guided by state Supreme Court decisions. Then every state Supreme Court was kind of face with this issue where people would challenge gun law or something would come up to court with criminal law and surely but surely, virtually every, not everyone but, virtually every state corps recognize some kind of individual right to arms, that right however was very limited by what is called a state police power. The power to legislate and Health Safety and warfare. That continues to hold sway. That goes into the early 20th century. The nra really understands the kind of interpretation as well. Then in 1939, the United States, the Supreme Court versus waits on the Second Amendment detail. He talked about it in two or three Supreme Court decisions that nothing indepth. They addressed more the heart of the issue and it is very cryptic, the courts, after the Supreme Court issued that decision, all interpreted as meaning the Second Amendment pretext a collective right, not the individual right. That remains the status quo at least legally speaking i could say politically, and the average person did not think that was the case, but legally speaking until the district of columbia and heller, to to keep their arms dusting from the militia as well as connected to the militia and that right extends to selfdefense. During the 19 twenties and thirties as when we saw at the start of gun control legislation in this country . I think more modern as you know it today, the categories that are being regulated in the 19 twenties and thirties are really no different than the late 19th century, but you start to see more modern type of laws and regulations. They are becoming more comprehensive, if that answer your question. Let us go back further. You said the formations, the genesis of the nra post civil war, how did they view the Second Amendment then versus how we may be today . Are there differences . Yes. I think when the nra was first established in 1971, its going to be a hard fine to see them talking about the Second Amendment. It is really at the turn of the 20th century that they Start Talking about the Second Amendment. It is almost always in the context of what is called the 1911 law. Which was new yorks law, the first law to require someone to get a permit to purchase and own a handgun. Before that, there were no such laws other than a brief chicago law around 1908. It didnt stay in the books very long. That law is really important because new york at that time was the epicenter of the United States in terms of population. New york city number 50 to 100. If you take those cities and you had a mola, that population still did not add up to new york city. Thats what Central New York was. We gotta remember that the nra has organizing short charter that is where the most of the members are in the headquarters. That is when they really Start Talking about talking about the Second Amendment. Of course, the auspices of these weapons crossing borders in the 19th century where you had the robert parents than. The 20th century you had the mob violence and the gang violence. How did all of that effect the debate in this country . There is an interesting thing about i think everybody knew United States agree that there is a problem. The only disagreement is more or less in terms of, how do you solve that problem . There was a movement and the United States that looked at the United States that the government was passing to many laws to catch the criminals that extended to fire arms. When theyre debating that, everyone agrees gangsters are problem, including the nra. The nra is arguing that well, maybe these gun laws are being financed by gangsters. Gangsters are the ones that want them because then we, the law abiding citizens will be disarmed and not be able to fight back. Conversely, you have people that are supporting gun control at that time. Individuals more so than the movement. Their argument is the reverse. Maybe its the gangsters that are financing these nra, or financing the laws to stop the lives from being passed so they can continue to carry guns and doing crimes as usual. It is interesting that no one disagrees that gangsters are the epicenter of why these gun laws but both sides are using them as propaganda and no factual basis to support. It when did the nra move to its origins to where we are today . What was the pivot point . Was it world war ii . Postworld war ii . I would say it is 1932. 1932 is when the nra back legislation known as the uniform firearms act which was intended it was a modest state legislation that was supposed to be enacted everywhere as a way to make the laws uniform and in doing so would protect sportsmans saying if i was traveling interstate from indiana to ohio, if ohio had stricter laws and i was trifling in my car, i would not be harmed by people of that state, because these laws would be uniform. Their uniform firearms act was so popular that it convinced the new York Assembly by overwhelming majorities to enact the legislation, not a super majority to overrate the veto but, armed in America Governor roosevelt decided when governor roosevelt vetoed the legislation, nra ramped up its efforts. They started putting advertisement for recruitment that was expresses expressly targeted at fighting firearms laws. They created ten objectives, the first three relate to Fire Fighting firearms legislation. I think that is the genesis where the nra really becomes, but for many decades let me caution and say that in the 1930s the tierney general of the United States knew who the nra was nra they were well aware of what the nra was doing. So the nra was able to do this for decades and it is not until jfk gets assassinated that the American Public gets a wake up call and introduced to the nra that we have come to know today. But one that fights firearms laws. How did marine become a Senior Historian for the u. S. Air force . He went to the marine corps, he was stationed overseas, he was a Marine Security guard in paris and shanghai. From there i got the International Affairs bud and went to George Washington. George washington is probably the most Political Organization or Political University in the country. I got the law bud and one thing led to another to lead myself back to the air force and history. But i am very fortunate to be serving with them and very lucky to have served with a lot of these people. You mentioned at the top of our conversation, the title is armed in america. The history of gun rights from colonial missions militias to concealed carry. If you could select one talking point, one take away from your book, what is it . One thing i hope you will take away is the right to arms as we know what discussed today is not the same as it was discussed 200 years ago, 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. It has evolved and it has changed. I hope the other takeaway is that the laws have changed at times to adapt to the environment, to gun violence, to changes in technology and whatnot. Whatever your side is, if you are pro gun or pro gun control or just in the middle somewhere, the big takeaway what i want you to take away from the book is that you have a conversation about it. There are things for everyones perspective that they may take from the book unlike. But its not just taking the perspective that you like but there are different perspectives to view as well. Patrick charles is joining us in new york, part of the gathering of the american historical association, we thank you for being with us. Thank you steve. Now on american artifacts, a visit to the nras National Firearms museum in Fairfax Virginia to see its collection of