patrick charles is a former marine, 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 sealed carried. thank you for being here on history tv. >> thank you steve glad to be. here >> let me begin with the origins of the nra. the national rifle association, how does the organization come about and why? >> well it came about after the civil war and where there is poor marksmanship by the union still soldiers and two officers start to form the nra. for two purposes, one is to facilitate build and grow long range rifle ranges. the other one too was assist the state national guards and marksmanship. and the nra initially just so you know was kind of a working to get appropriations by the government and they started off with one organization there were 1700 by 19. gfkç29. they also are just so you know, built on there was the english

national rifles association. and that was a predecessor this was mostly the american version. so the difference in the two to start off with was this franchise like model, and you could start with the rifle club locally or statewide. those rifle clubs would then compete in local and national events. >> with the founder of the recognize would the founder of the nra recognize the nra today in 2020. >> not at all, it was not intended to be political in any way the foundation. i think you can even say as late as 19 you know the mid 1960s, the heads of that organization would not see what the nra has become today. they have to come to some extent a political organization. the second thing i would say, is that in the 19 fifties and

sixties, the nra officials repeatedly said that they did not want to be a partisan organization. and they did not want to be a disservice to the nra or the people. people are closely intertwined and boot strapped to the republican party. >> it is a patchwork of gun laws back then, and today. so how does that influence or affect the role of the nra. >> depends on what your talk about, early on the federal government was not involved in this whatsoever. gun laws fall either eddy state or local level. primarily local. state laws, would cover broad swath of areas, and you know concealed carry, minor notion feuding guns, but local laws govern things like you know what would go on.

and they continue to be the standard rule of thumb until the 19 thirties, and even when those laws were passed, in the thirties, that state should be the one's ruling firearms. >> so what states pass the laws and when >> well that is a difficult question, if you are looking at gun laws, it goes back to colonies. back to the 18th century. actually early 17th century. there are a couple of gun laws on the books. but those laws are basically either gunpowder storage, or where or where you could not carry a gun. what kind of weapon you could or could not have. and how far you could far away from population. like most law said you couldn't fire or shoot a rifle within a quarter mile of town. so those were mostly about

carry laws. and it was around the mid to late as a teen century, that you started to talk about firearms dealers, and minors and leaders people. things of that nature, that people that should not have guns. that is 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 he has evolved in the last 200 plus years? >> yes the original right, it is not what we know to be today. if you look at the founding documents, if you look at everything all of it institutes the idea of federalizing the militia, and the arguments between states rights and the constitution of states who had the right, and who had the power to control them during war. when it comes to the states,

they wanted full control. so the constitution when it came in 1787, and ratified later they said that the government may have too much control of the states militia. the second amendment is more or less a reflection of that fear as. that is not to say that the second amendment wasn't linked at all to an individual as having a gun. what they understood was that in order to understand that we need to fight for that liberty. you need to train for that liberty. now, well regulated militia does not mean the same a citizenry. it means multiple militia commentators are talking about really the most important, aspects of the militia was training, and how they move their legs. because there is an economy a force with rifles back then. it's about turning and

maneuvering those forces in a way, that can effectuate the economy of force. i get in the 19th century we are starting to get to the individual conception of the arms, that we talk about today. those are really guided by state supreme court decisions. then every state supreme court was faced with this issue where people would challenge the gun law. and something would come up as in criminal law, and slowly but surely as not everyone but virtually every state would recognize some type of individual right to arms. that right however was limited by what's called the state police power. which gives the state, the power to legislate and for health safety and welfare. which is to be preventing people from being shot by bullets. that goes into the early with the early 20th century. the nra understands that interpretation as well. then in 1939, the supreme court

first wave on the second amendment detail. they have talked about it in passing, two or three supreme court decisions, but nothing in-depth. it is different in the eye states because they addressed more of the heart of the issue. and it's very cryptic, but courts after the supreme court issued that decision, all interpreted as being as it as second amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. so i could say politically, and the average person on the street didn't think that was the case. but legally speaking, until as 2008 when they said that they can keep their arms distinct from the militia, and the rate of self-defense. >> so to be clear, during the twenties and thirties as when we saw the start of gun control legislation in this country? >> i think more modern, as you

know today. in categories that are being regulated in the 19 twenties and thirties, i really no different than late 19 century. but you start to see more modern types of laws and regulations. they become more comprehensive. if that answers your question. >> let's go back even a little further because you said the formations of the genesis of the nra, post civil war how they view the second amendment then, versus how we maybe view it today. are the differences? >> yes i think when is first established i think it's a hard find to see it 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 -- which is new york's 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, but it did stay on the books for very long. that was really important, because new york at the time was the epicenter of the united states. especially in terms of population, new york city i think it was number 5200, if you took 100 cities at the time, and you had them all up the population they still don't equal to new york city. that's how central new york was, to the united states at that time. obviously they had a big fear, plus you have to remember that the nra, had to organize a charter from new york. that's where the headquarters are at. that's why they started talking about the second amendment. marshall and passing that in-depth. >> and of course the 19th century, we have the robber baron's, and the mob violence and how did those that affect this in this country.

>> well there is an interesting thing i think everything in the eye safe knew there was a problem. so there's no disagreement there. the only disagreement, was more less in terms of how do you solve that problem. as there was a movement in the united states, that more list looked at you know that they were saying government was passing to many laws, as to catch the criminals as. and that extended to firearms. so when they're debating, that they all agreed it gangsters our problem. but the nra is arguing that, maybe these gun laws are being financed by gangsters, and the gangsters are the one that wants them. and we the law-abiding citizen would be disarmed and would not be able to fight back. conversely you had people

1932 is when the nra, back the firearms act. which was a legislation that was was we enacted everywhere. as a way to make the laws uniform. and to do it in a way that if i was traveling interstate from indiana to ohio, if ohio had

stricter laws and i was traveling by car back i would not be affected by that. their uniforms firearms act, that they convinced the new york assembly, by an overwhelming majority to enact the legislation. he then governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation. he vetoed it, and the nra really ramped up its efforts, and they start putting advertisement for recruitment, that were expressly targeted at the fire arms laws. they head objectives, and the first three are related to firearms legislation. i think that's the genesis of what the nra becomes, but for many decades let me caution and say, the 1930s the attorney general of the united states, knew who the nra was. and they became very well aware

what the nra was doing. the general american public wasn't though. so they continue to do this for decades, and it's not until jfk gets its fascinated, that the american public gets a wake up call. and introduce to the nra that we have come to know today, is one that fights firearms law. >> how did a marine become a senior historian for the u.s. air force? >> well the marine corps, was stationed overseas and i was the it was actually a marine security guard. in shanghai, and then from there i got the international affairs bug, and went to george washington and from george washington it's probably the most political, organization in you know political interviews oversee i should say in the country, and got the law bud, and then one thing led to another and to lead myself back to the air force history. but i'm very fortunate to be serving with them, i've been

lucky to service a lot of these men and women. >> you mention your book at the top of the conversation, it's called armed in america, history of gun rights from militias to seal carry. if you could select one take away from your book, one talking point what is it? >> well i hope the takeaway is, that the right to arms as we know it or discuss it today, is not the same as it was discussed 200 years ago. 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. it is it has evolved and hits changed, and i also hope the other takeaway is that the laws have changed at times to adapt to to the environment. to gun violence. two changes in technology and whatnot, and if you have whatever your side is if you're pro gun, or if you're in the middle of somewhere, you know the big takeaway and you have a conversation about it. there are things for anybody

for this perspective that they can take a look at it, it's not about taking away your perspective but they are different perspectives to consider as well. >> patrick charles he's joining us in new york, part of the gathering of the historical socially shun, we thank you for being with us. >> thank you steve. the