Patrick charles is a former marine and now Senior Historian for the u. S. Air force and the author of the book armed in america a history of gun rights from colonial militias to conceal carries. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, steve. Glad to be here. Let me begin with the origins of the nra, the National Rifle association. How did the organization come about and why . Well, it came about after the civil war where theres poor marksmanship by the Union Solders during the war so two officers formed the nra with two purpose. One is to facilitate, build, and grow long range rifle ranges and the other was to assist the state National Guards in marksmanship. The nra initially, just so you know, was kind of working to get appropriations from the government and they started off with one organization. They grew to 1,700 by 1929. They also are, just so you know, built on there was an english National Rifle association, and they were that was the predecessor in 1859. This was supposed to be the american version. The only thing that differentiated the two to start off with was this franchiselike model that you could start and build a rifle club locally or statewide and you were an nraaffiliated rifle club more or less. And those rifle clubs would compete in state, local, and National Shooting matches. Based on your research, would the early founders of the nra recognize the Organization Today in 2020 . Oh, not at all. The organization was not at all intended to be political in any way. I think you could even say as late as mid1960s that the heads of that organization could not see what the nra has become today. The nra, one it became a Political Organization not focused on marksmanship and training the national guard. The second thing i would say is that in the 1950s and 60s, the nra officials repeatedly said they did not want to be a partisan organization. That would be a disservice to the nra and the american people. However, as we know, they are closely intertwined and bootstrapped to the republican party. And realizing that states rights is one of the fundamental formations of our country. But it is a patchwork of gun laws back then and today. So, how does that influence or affect the role of the nra . Well, depends on when youre talking about. Early on, the federal government was not involved in gun laws whatsoever. Gun laws were all either at a state or local level, primarily local. State laws would cover broad swaths of areas. Dealers, maybe conceal carry, minors not shooting guns. But the local laws governed all the things that were minor to the town. That continued to be the standard rule of thumb until 1930s when the federal government wanted to get involved with firearms law. But even then when those laws were passed and the nra argued at the time that state governments should be the ones controlling firearms or making those decisions. So, which state or states passed the first laws and when . Oh, thats a difficult question. I mean, if you look at gun laws, it goes back to the colonies back in the 18th century. You can find actually earlier 17th century, theres a couple of gun laws on the books. But those laws were basically either about gunpowder storage, where or where you cannot carry a gun, what kind of weapons you could or would not have, how far you could fire away from settled population. Like, most laws said you couldnt fire or shoot a rifle within a quarter mile of the town. So, those were the early gun laws. Those evolved mostly into carry laws and it was the midtolate 19th century things became more modern. Talking about firearms dealers, you know, minors, dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns. Thats really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. Which goes directly to your book from colonial militias to conceal carry. Can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200plus years . Yeah, the original right isnt what we know it today. If you look at all the founding documents, if you look at everything, all of it lends to the idea of the federalized militia debate which was the arguments between states rights and individuals. Well, the constitution and states whochlt had the power of the militia . George washington wanted more power over militias to control them during the war when it came to the states theyre like no we want full control. The concern of the constitution was the federal government may have too much control of the states militia. Theres constitutions to the effect but the Second Amendment is a reflection of that fear. Thats not to say the Second Amendment didnt have an individual right component or wasnt linked at all to an individual having a gun. The conception of liberty that the founders understood was that, you know, in order to understand liberty, you needed to fight for that liberty. You needed to train for that liberty. And that was understanding of a wellregulated militia. That does not mean the same. It means welltrained. Multiple commentators were talking about the two important aspects of the militia was training and how they moved their legs because youve got to understand this is about a force with rifles back then. There wasnt very good accuracy with the rifles. So, it was about turning and maneuvering the forces in a way that could give force. Those were really guided by state Supreme Court decisions. And every state Supreme Court was faced with this issue where people would challenge a gun law or something would come up to court with a criminal law. And slowly but surely virtually every not everyone, but virtually every state court recognized some kind of individual right to arms. That right, however, was severely limited by whats called the state police power which basically gives the state the power to legislate in Health Safety and welfare and that includes people getting shot by bullets. So, that continues to hold sway. That goes to the early 20th century. The nra understands that kind of interpretation as well. And then in 19 i believe its 1939 is United States v. Miller which the Supreme Court weighs on the Second Amendment detail. They talked about passing two or three state Supreme Court decisions in the 19th century but nothing in depth. The United States is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue. And its very cryptic, but courts after the Supreme Court issued that decision all interpreted as meaning that the Second Amendment means a collective right, not an individual right. That remained the status quo at least legally speaking. I could say politically and the average person on the street didnt think that was the case. But legally speaking until District Of Columbia v. Heller, keep and bear arms distinct from the militia as well as part of the militia. Just to be clear, during the 1920s and 30s is when we saw the start of gun control legislation in this country . I think more modern, as you know, today the categories that are being regulated in the 1920s and 30s are no different than the late 19th century but you start to see more modern type of laws and regulations. Theyre becoming more comprehensive if that answers your question. Lets go back a little further. You said the formation, the genesis of nra postcivil war, how did they view the Second Amendment then versus how we may view it today . Are there differences . Yeah. I think when the nra is first established in 1971, its going to be a hard find to see them talking about the Second Amendment. Its really at the turn of the 20th century that they Start Talking about the Second Amendment, and its almost always in the context of what is called the 1911 sullivan law which was new yorks law, the first law to require someone to get a permit to purchase and own a hand gun. Before that, there were no such laws other than a brief chicago law. I believe chicago enacted their law in 1908 but it didnt stay on the books very long. That laws really important because new york at that time was the epicenter of the United States in terms of population, new york city, i think cities number 50 to 100, if you take the 50 to 100th city at that time and you add them up, the populations, they still didnt equal new york city. Thats how Central New York was to the United States at that time. Obviously they had a big fear. Plus youve got to remember that the nra is organized chartered out of new york and thats where most of their members are and their headquarters is at. Thats when they Start Talking about the Second Amendment, more so in passing than in depth though. On the auspices of the weapons crossing the borders. We had robert bareson in the 20th century, the mob violence and gang violence. How did that affect the debate in this country . Well, theres an interesting thing about the mob. I think everybody in the United States agreed there was a problem. So, no disagree there. The only disagreement was more or less in terms of how do you solve that problem . There was a movement in the United States that more or less looked at the United States that the government was passing too many laws to catch the criminals that were burdening lawabiding citizens. And that extended to firearms. So, when theyre debating that, while everyone agrees that gangsters are a problem, including the nra, the nra is arguing that maybe the gun laws are being financed by gangsters and the gangsters are the ones that want them because then we, the lawabiding citizen will be unable to fight back. Conversely you have people supporting gun control at that time, individuals more so than a movement, but their argument is the reverse of that. They say maybe its the or finas to stop the laws from being passed so they would continue in carrying guns and doing crime as usual. Its interesting that, you know, no one disagrees that gangsters are the epicenter of why these gun laws really come to the for but both sides are using them as propaganda, with no factual basis to support. So when did the nra move to its origins to where we are today . What was the pivot point . Was a world war ii, postworld war ii . I would say it is 1932. 1932 is when the nra backed legislation known as a uniform firearms act, which was intended which was a model state legislation that was supposed to be enacted everywhere as a way to make the laws uniform and in doing so that protect sportsman saying i was troubling interstate from indiana to julio, if ohio had stricter laws and i was traveling in my car i would not be harmed by going into that state necessarily because these laws would be uniform. Their uniform firearms act was so popular that the nra convinced the new York Assembly by overwhelming majorities to enact the legislation, not a supermajority to have read the veto but majorities. Then, governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation. Governor roosevelt veto the legislation, the nra really racked up its efforts and started putting up advertisements for recruitment that were expressing targeted, then fighting firearms laws, they started putting the margins of american rifleman and those objectives, the first three relate to fighting firearms legislation. Thats, i think, the genesis of where the nra really becomes but the nra for many decades after that, let me caution say in the 1930s, the attorney general of the United States knew who the nra was in fighting the firearms legislation. They became very well aware what the nra was doing. The general American Public however, wasnt. The nra was able to continue to do this for decades and its not until jfk gets assassinated that the mayor is a wake up call and introduce the nra that we have come to know today that its one that fights firearms laws. How do the marine become a historian for the u. S. Air force . Well, he went to the marine corps. Was stationed overseas. Was what we actually call a Marine Security guard, protect embassies, paris and shanghai, and from there i got the international faris bug and then went to George Washington and George Washington is probably the most Political Organization, or Political University in the country. Weve got the law bud, you know, one thing led to another to ignite myself back to the air force history but im very fortunate to be serving with them and very lucky to have served the men and women. We mentioned your book at the top of our conversation. The titled is, armed in america, to concealed carry , if you could select one talking point, one take away from your book what is it . Well i hope people take away is that, you know, the right arms as we know today or discuss it today is not the same as it was discussed 200 years ago, 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. Its evolved. Its changed. Up to the times. I also hope the other takeaway is that the laws have changed and adapt to the environment and changes in technology and whatnot and that if you have, whatever your side, is whether 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 anybody, that they take away from this book unlike, but its not just taking away your perspective that you like, theres different perspectives to view as well. Patrick chiles, hes joining us in new york. Part of the gathering of american historical association. We thank you for being with us. Thank you steve. Tonight on American History tv, beginning at eight eastern, a look at why june is lgbtq pride month. Six days of protests began on june 28th, 1969 after a raid on a granite will village great jacob and new york city. Prove to be a turning point to gay rights movement. Historian mark stein, editor of the stonewall riots of documentary history joined us to mark the 50th anniversary of the uprising. Watch American History tv tonight and over the weekend on cspan 3. American history tv on cspan 3, exploring the people and advance to tell the american story every weekend coming up this weekend, saturday at 6 pm eastern on the civil war, the 1863 richmond bread riots where hundreds of porn working class women protest inflation and the scarcity of food. Sunday at 4 pm eastern, four films from the 19 and 50s profiling the auto, dairy, restaurant in Airline Industries negatively affected today by the coronavirus pandemic. At 8 pm eastern on the presidency, the nixon administrations native American Government reforms. The restoration of indian land and a new era of self government. Exploring the american story, watch American History tv this weekend on cspan 3