american history tv the best coverage, eyewitness accounts, films, lectures, and visits to museums and historic places, all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. announcer: next, patrick charles, senior historian for the united states air force, 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. steve: patrick charles is all former marine and senior historian for the u.s. airport and the author of the book "armed and america." thank you for being with us on

c-span3, american history tv. patrick thank you, steve. : let me begin with the origin of the national rifle association. how did the organization come about and why? patrick: it came about during the civil war. there was poor marksmanship, so two officers decided to form the nra based out of new york with two purposes. facilitate, build, 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, built on, there was an english national rifle association. in 1859.a predecessor

this is supposed to be the american version. the only thing that differentiated 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 those rifle clubs within compete in state, local, and national shooting matches. steve: based on your research, with the early founders recognize the organization today in 2020? patrick: oh, not at all. the organization was not intended to be political in any way. i think you could even say as late as mid-1960's that the heads of that organization could nra has becomee today.

one, it became a political organization, not focused on marksmanship and mentoring the national guard. second, 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 american people. however, we know today they are closely intertwined and bootstrapped with the republican party. steve: 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 patrick: 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 to be the standard rule until the 1930's, when the federal government when

wanted to get involved in firearms laws. even then, when those laws were passed, the nra argued at the time the state should be controlling firearms or making those decisions. steve: so which states past the first laws and when? patrick: that's a difficult question. if you're looking at gun laws, it goes back to the colonies, the 18th century, there are a couple gun laws on the books. but those laws are about gunpowder storage, where or where not you cannot carry a gone, what weapons you could or could not have. how far you could fire away from a settled population. most laws said you could not fire or shoot a rifle within a a quarter-mile of a town. those evolve mostly into carry laws, and mid- to late 19th

century, were talking about ,irearms dealers, minors dangerous people, things of that nature who should not have guns. that is the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. steve: which goes directly to colonial, from militias to conceal carry. can you talk about how it has evolved over the last 100-plus years? patrick: yeah. the original right is not as we know it today. if you look at all the founding documents, everything is it all pertains to the federalized militia debate, the arguments between states rights and individuals. what the constitution states, who had the power of the militia? the federal government? when it came to the states, no, we want full control. so the concern for the constitution in 1787 and when it was ratified in 1789, was the

federal government have too much control of the states militia. there are protections in the constitution to that effect, but 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 that the founders understood was in toer to understand you had 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. multiple commentators at that time were talking about the two most important aspects of the militia was training and how they move their legs. you understand it is about an economy of force with rifles back then. there was not accuracy with those rifles. it is about turning and maneuvering those forces in a could counter another

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. people would challenge a gun law, or something would come up to court to challenge a gumball, but slowly but surely, every -- not everyone, but virtually every state recommended a right to bear arms, but that right was severely limited by what was called the state police power. , which gives the state the ability to legislate health, safety, and welfare, and that includes preventing people from getting shot by bullets. that continued to hold sway. that goes into the early 20th century. the nra understood that interpretation as well. court first supreme weighs on the second limit in detail.

they had talked about it in passing in 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 it's very cryptic. 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. i can say politically in the average person in the street did not think that was the case, but legally speaking, until it was recognize the08 amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms distinct from the militia and that includes the right to self-defense. steve: so just to be clear, in the 1920's and 1930's is when we started to see gun control in legislation in this country? patrick: 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. steve: and let's go back a little further. you said the formations, the genesis of the nra post-civil war, how they view the second amendment then versus today? are there differences? patrick: kie 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 is really at the turn of the 20th century they start talking andt the second amendment, it is almost always in the law, thef the sullivan 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 stay on the books for very long. that was important because new york at that time was the epicenter of the united states in terms of population. new york city, there were 50 to 100, 50 to 100 in the city at that time, if you add them up, it still did not equal new york city. that is how central new york was at that time. obviously, they had a big fear. the nra is remember organized and chartered out of new york. that is where most of their members are and where their headquarters are at. that is when they start talking about the second amendment, more and passing than in depth. steve: weapons crossing the borders, in the 19th century, robber barons, in the 20th century, we had the mob violence and gang violence. how did all of that affect the debate in this country? patrick: there is an interesting thing about that. everyone in the united states

understood that was a problem. was moredisagreement 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 the 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, the law-abiding citizens, will not be able 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 are saying well, maybe the gangsters are financing the sportsmen and the nra so they

can continue doing crimes as usual. so it is interesting that no one disagrees that gangsters are at the epicenter of why these gun laws come to the foray, but both sides use them as propaganda with no factual basis. moved toen did the nra its origins where we are today? when was the pivot point? was it world war ii, post-world war ii? patrick: 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. say if i was traveling in a state from indiana to ohio, if ohio has stricter laws, i would not be harmed by going into that state necessary because these

laws are uniform. the uniform firearms act was so popular, the nra convinced the new york assembly by overwhelming majorities to enact the legislation. not a super majority that could override the veto, but majorities. then governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation. when governor roosevelt vetoed the legislation, the nra really ramped up its efforts. it started putting out advertisements for recruitment groups,ally targeting advertisements in the margin of "american rifleman." 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 knew the nra was fighting firearms legislation. the american public did not.

continue tole to to do this for decades. it was not until jfk was assassinated that the american public gets a wake-up call and introduced the nra we have come to know today, one that fights firearms laws. steve: how did a marine become a senior historian for the u.s. air force? patrick: i went to the marine corps, was stationed overseas. , was a marine security guard protected embassies in paris and shanghai, and from there i went got the international affairs bug and george washington and george washington, and it is probably the most political university in the country. got the law bug, and one thing led to another to lead myself back to the air force and to the history, but i am very very lucky to have served with these men and women. 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? patrick: well, 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 was discussed 200 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. it has evolved. it has changed. up to the times. i hope the other take away is the laws have changed at times to adapt to the environment, to gun violence, to changes in technology and whatnot. if you have -- whatever your side is -- if you are pro-gun or pro-gun control or just in the middle somewhere, the big take , what i want you to take away from the book is that there are different perceptions of it. it is not just about taking away

your perspective, but that there are different perspectives as well. steve: patrick charles, thank you for being with us. patrick: thanks, steve. >> you're watching american history tv, all we can come every weekend on c-span3. >> next, national world war ii museum senior historian robert citino discussed how decisions made at the february 1945 yalta conference effected the ending of world war ii. this talk is part of a day-long symposium marking the 75th anniversary of the pivotal meeting between british prime minister winston churchill, president franklin roosevelt, and soviet leader joseph stalin. >> welcome back to the metal and paul hilliard conference center here at th