>> next patrick charles senior historian for the united states air force talked 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 c-span. charles: thank you, steve. let me begin with the origin of the national rifle association. how did it come about and why? 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 long-range rifle ranges and the other was to assist the state national guard's 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 1700 by 1929. they also are, just so you know, there is an english national rifle association. this is supposed to be the american version. the only thing differentiating the two to 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. would they recognize the nra now in 2020? oh, not at all. the organization was not intended to be political in any way. i think you can say as late as the mid-1960's, the heads of that organization could not see what the in array has become today. one, it became a political organization, not focused on marksmanship and mentoring the national guard.

in the 1950's and 1960's, the nra officials said they did not 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. and it was a patchwork of gun laws back then and today. how does that influence or affect the role of the nra? it depends on when you're talking about. early on, the federal government was not involved in gun laws at all. they were state, primarily local. state laws would govern dealers, minors not shooting guns. the local laws would govern everything minor to the town. that continued until the 1930's when the federal

government when did get involved. even then, when those laws were passed, the nra argued at the time the state should be controlling those decisions. ? show less text so which states past the first laws and win -- passed the first laws and when? that's a difficult question. you can go back to the colonies -- the 17th century there's a couple gun laws on the books. but those laws are about gunpowder storage, win, where you cannot carry a gun. how far you could fire away from a settled population. most laws said you could not fire or shoot a rifle within a quarter-mile of account. those involved mostly into carry

laws, and ms. to late night -- mid to late 19th century, laws for dealers ,mino minors. that is the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. which rings as to your book. can you talk about how it has evolved over the last 100-plus years? yes. the right is not as we now 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?

when it came to the states, no, 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 less a reflection of the fear. that's 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 well-regulated militia. that is not the same as an armed citizenry. it really is well-trained. 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, that is when we begin to get the individual conception of the right to bear arms, those were guided by state supreme court decisions. someone would challenge a gun 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 includes not being shot by bullets. that continued to hold sway. that goes into the early 20's century. the nra understood that interpretation as well.

and then when the supreme court first weighs 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 he issue and it's very cryptic. but courts after the supreme court 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, but legally speaking, until it was recognized as the right to keep and bear arms distinct from the militia and that includes the right to self-defense. ? show less text in the 1930's is when we started to see gun control in this country?

i think more modern as you know it today. the categories that are being regulated in the 1920's and 1930's 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. you said the formation, the genesis of the nra post-civil 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. it's really the turn of the 20th century 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 laws other than 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 population, there were 50 to 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. the nra 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. 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? there's an interesting thing about the mafia and gang violence. i think everyone in the united states agreed there was a problem. there's no disagreement there. the only disagreement was more or less in terms of how do you solve that problem? there was in a movement in the united states that said the government was passing too many laws to catch he criminals. and that extended to firearms. so when they are debating that, while everyone agrees gangsters are a problem including the nra, the nra argues that maybe these gun laws are being financed by gangsters and the gangster secretly want them because then we, he law-abiding 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 sportsmen and the nra so they 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. when was the pivot point? was t world war ii, post-world war i would say it was 1932. 1932 is when the nra backed legislation known as the uniform firearms act, which was state legislation that was supposed to be enacted everywhere, as a way to make the laws uniform. and in doing so, that would protect sportsmen. if i am traveling

from indiana to ohio, if ohio has stricter laws, i would not be harmed because the laws are you one. the uniform firearms act was so popular, the nra convinced the 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 legislation, the nra really ramped up its efforts. it started to put out ads for recruitment, started putting in the margin of "american rifleman" ken objectives, and the first three relate to fighting firearms legislation. that is the genesis of what the nra become spirit in the 1930's, the attorney general of the united states new -- knew the nra was fighting firearms legislation. the american

public did not. it was not ntil jfk was assassinated that the mayor can public gets a wake-up call and introduced the nra we have come to know today, one that fights firearms laws. how did a marine, and expert in firearms laws? well, the marine was stationed in shanghai and i got the international affairs bug and george washington and george washington is probably the most olitical university in the country. got the law bug, and one thing led to another to lead myself back to the air force and history, but i'm very

fortunate. very lucky to have erved. we mentioned your book at the h. >> we mentioned your book and america."is "armed in if you could choose one take away from your book, what is it? >> what i hope people take away is that the right to arms that we know it today is not as it was discussed 200 years ago, 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. it has changed up to the times and i hope the other take away is that the loss have changed -- laws have changed to adapt to the environment, changes in technology. whatever your site is, pro-gun or pro-gun control or in the isdle, the big take away

that you have a conversation about it. anybodye things for that they may take away and like but it is not just about your perspective. there are different perspectives as well. >> patrick charles is joining us in new york. we thank you for being with us. >> thanks, steve. ♪ ♪

announcer: you are watching american history tv, covering history c-span style with eyewitness accounts, lectures and college classrooms, visits to museums and historic places. all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. ♪ announcer: c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. the central since mone

role of slavery in antebellum washington, d.c. here is a preview. >> they are going to build a capital city not yet named after him. though eventually it was named after him. were there any slaves living in the washington area at the time? >> from the very beginning of what we call the washington era there were plantations. there were enslaved people that lived here before it became officially washington. >> to build the city of washington, did they import labor from overseas or use slave labor? who really built it? >> washington is built by many people. it is built by immigrants brought into work but there is a thatg enslaved population turns the land from swamp to farmland. that begins to identify and cut down the trees, the timber that

is used. that also quarries the stone so that in slave labor touches all aspects of what would become washington, d.c. announcer: watch the entire program sunday at 2:30 p.m. on american history tv. night, on the communicators, from the state of the net conference justice on encryption technology and privacy. >> if facebook ended encrypted platforms, the company itself would lose visibility into what is happening on the platforms 75% of that will go dark. think of all of the children that we will not be able to track down. >> my view is that law enforcement needs to rethink

about encryption and let of the fact congress will not act, there are cyber threats, and embrace encryption instead of trying to find ways to break it. that is not what law enforcement is trying to do but it needs to embrace encryption as a way to enhance the cyber security and therefore the security of all americans. announcer: watch monday at 8 tw2.eastern on c-span yearsjuly for the past 25 the gettysburg anniversary committee has hosted a civil war battle reenactment and living history village depicting camp life. next, we visit a union army surgeon and and ballmer and talk to reenactors -- enbalmer and talk about medical practices during the war. >> there was a lot