>> patrick charles is a former marine and now senior historian for the u.s. air force and author of the book "armed in america: a history of gun rights from colonial militias to concealed carry." thanks for being with us on c-span3's american history tv. >> 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 there was poor mark manship by the union

soldiers during the war, so two officers decided to form the nra out of new york for two purposes. one is to facilitate and grow long range rifle ranges and the other was to assist the state national guards in mark manship. 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 other thing that really differentiated the two to start off with was the franchise model, you could start and build a rifle club locally or statewide and then you were an nra affiliated rifle club more or less. those rifle clubs would then 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 19 -- mid 1960s that the heads of that organization could not see what the nra has become today. the nra, it became a political organization, not focussed solely on marksmanship. the second thing i would say is that in the 1950s and 1960s, the nra officials repeatedly said they did not want to be a partisan organization. that would be a disservice to the nra and to the american people, however, today as we know they're very closely intertwined and boot strapped to the republican party. >> 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. who does that influence or affect the role of the nra? >> well, depends on when you're talking about. early on, the federal government was not involved in gun laws whatsoever. gun laws were all at either a state or local level. primarily local. state laws would cover broad swaths of areas, dealers, maybe concealed 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 the 1930s when the federal government wanted to get involved with firearms law but even then when the laws were passed, and the nra argued at that time that state governments should be the ones controlling firearms or making those decisions. >> which state or states passed the first laws and when? >> oh. that's a difficult question.

if you're looking at gun laws, it goes back to the colonies in the 18th century or actually early as 17th century there's a couple gun laws on the books. those laws were basically either about gun powder storage, where or where you could not carry a gun, what kind of weapons you could or could not have, how far you can fire away from a settled population, like you couldn't -- most laws said you couldn't 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 then it was around the mid to late 19th century things really start to become those modern areas of laws, where you're talking about firearms dealers, you know, minors, dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns. that's really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. >> which goes directly from your book "from colonial militias to

concealed carry." can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200-plus years? >> yeah. the original right isn't what we know of it today. if you look at all the founding documents, if you look at everything, all of it hints to the idea of the federalized militia debate which was the arguments between states' rights and individuals -- well, the constitution in the states, who had the power of the militia. the medical government. george washington wanted for authority to control them during war. when it came to the states, no, we want full control. the concern of the constitution when it came in 1787 and ratified in 1789 was, you know, the federal government may have too much control of the state's militia. there were obviously protections in the constitution to that effect but the second amendment is more or less the reflection of that fear. that's not to say the second amendment didn't have an individual right component or wasn't linked at all to an

individual having a fun. the conception of liberty that the founders understood that in order to understand liberty, you needed to fight for that liberty, you needed to train for that liberty and that was the understanding of a well-regulated militia. the well-regulated militia does not mean the same as an armed citizenry. it means well trained. multiple militia commentators were talking about the two most important aspects of the militia was training and how they moved their legs because you have to understand there was an economy of force with rifles back then, there wasn't very good accuracy with those rifles. it's about turning and maneuvering the forces in a way that could effectuate it. the beginning of the 19th century is when we start to get the individual conception of the right to arms that we more or less talk about today. those were really guided by state supreme court decisions. ever state supreme court was faced with issue where people would challenge a gun law or something would come up with criminal law. slowly but surely, virtually

-- well, not everyone, but virtually every state court recognized some individual right to arms. that right was severely limited by what was called the state police power which gives the state the power to legislate in health, safety and welfare. that includes preventing people from getting shot by bullets. that continues to hold sway. that goes into the early 20th century. the nra really understands that kind of interpretation as well. then in 19 -- i believe it's 1939 is united states v. miller which is the supreme court first weighs on the second amendment in detail. they had talked about it in passing in two state supreme court decisions in the 19th century but nothing in depth. >> the united states v miller is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue. it's cryptic. but courts issued that decision

all interpreted as meaning that the second amendment represents a collective right not an individual right. that remained the status quo, at least legally speaking. i could say politically and, you know, the average person on the street didn't think that was the case. but legally speaking until district of columbia v. heller in 2008 recognized the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms distinct from the militia as well as connected to the militia and that right extends to self-defense. >> in the 1920s and 30s is when we saw 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 1920s and '30s are really no different than the late 19th century, but you start to see more modern type of laws and regulations. they're becoming more comprehensive, if that answers your question. >> let's 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 view it today? are there differences? >> yeah. i think when the nra is first established in 1871 it's going to be a hard find to see them talking about the second amendment. it's really at the turn of the 20th century that they start talking about the second amendment. it's almost always in the context of what is called the 1911 sullivan law, which was new york's law, the first law to allow someone -- 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 chicago enacted their law in 1908 but it didn't stay on 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, i think, the city's number 50 to 100. if you take the 50 to 100 city

at that time and add them all up all the populations they still didn't equal new york city. that's how central new york was to the united states at that time. they had a big fear. nra is organized and chartered out of new york. that's where most of the members are and their headquarters are at. that's when they really start talking about the second amendment, more so in passing than in-depth, though. >> under the auspices of these weapons crossing borders. in the 19th century we had the robert barron son, in the 20th century we had the mob violence and the gang violence, so how did all that affect the debate in this country? >> oh, well, there's an interesting thing about the mob and gang violence. i think everybody in the united states agreed there was a problem. no one disagreed 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 hurting law abiding citizens and that extended to firearms. when they're debating that while everyone agrees that gangsters are a problem, including the nra, the nra argued maybe these are financed by gangsters. then we, the law abiding citizens will be disarmed and won't be able to fight back. conversely you have people supporting gun control, individuals more so than a movement. their argument is the reverse of that. they're saying maybe it's the gangsters that are financing the sportsmen and the nra are financing the laws to stop the laws from being passed so they could continue on carrying guns and doing crime as usual. it's interesting that no one disagrees that gangs are are the epicenter of why these gun laws come to the foray, but both sides were using them as propaganda with 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, was it post-world war ii? >> i would say it is 1932. 1932 is when the nra backed legislation known as the 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 would protect sportsmen. say i was traveling the interstate from indiana to ohio, if ohio had stricter laws, i would not be harmed by going that state, necessarily, because the laws would be uniform. their uniform firearms act was so popular that the nra convinced the new york assembly by overwhelming ma authorities to enact the legislation. not a super majority to override the veto, but majorities. but then governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation

when governor roosevelt vetoed the legislation, the nra really ramped up its efforts and started putting advertisements for recruitment that were expressly targeted at then fighting firearms laws. they start putting in the margins of the american riflemen, ten objectives and those objectives -- the first three relate to fighting firearms legislation. i think that's the genesis of where the nra really becomes -- but the nra for many decades -- let me caution and say in the 1930s the attorney general of the united states knew who the nra was in fighting firearms legislation. the general american public, however, wasn't. so the nra was able to continue to do this for decades. it's not until j.f.k. gets assassinated that the american public gets introduced to the nra that we've come to know today that fights firearms laws. >> how did a marine become a

senior for the u.s. air force? >> well, went to the marine corps, it was stationed overseas. it was a marine security guard, protected embassies in paris and shanghai. from there i got the international affairs bug and then went to george washington and george washington is probably the most political organization in the -- our political university in the country. got the law bug and one thing led to another to lean myself back to the air force to the history. i'm very fortunate to be serving with them, i've been very lucky to have served with a lot of these men and women. >> we mentioned your book "armed in america: a history of gun rights from colonial militias to concealed carry." if you could select one talking point, one take-away from your book, what is it? >> what i hope people take away, is that 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's evolved and changed up to the times. and i also hope the other take away is that the laws have changed at times to adapt to the environment, to gun violence, to changes in technology and what-not and that if you have -- whatever your side is, if you're pro gun or pro gun control or you're just in the middle somewhere, the big take-away, what i want you to take away from the book is that you have a conversation about it. there's things for anybody's perspective that they may take away from the book and like. it's not about just taking away your perspective that you like, but there's 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. >> thanks, steve. c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. now on american artifacts, a visit to the nra's national fire arms museum in fairfax, virginia, to see its collection of guns and learn about the role firearms have played during the course of american history. >> welcome to the nra national firearms museum. i'm jim supica, museum director. we're going to go through the museum and take a look at the

history of americans and their firearms. we'll start with the earliest precolonial days, go up through current time. we'll look at the role firearms have played in terms of the settlement and expansion of america, the role firearms have played in military and sporting and personal shooting roles. we'll see the guns of champions, the guns of presidents and heroes, and we'll see some great pieces of art, firearms engraving on a steel canvas. the national firearms museum is at nra headquarters in fairfax, virginia. now, the museum has existed itself for nearly 80 years and we've been in this location for about 15. we're custodians of about 7,000 firearms. they have been donated to us or lent to us over the past 75 years. we have about 3,000 on display here and about 1,000 more at the nra national sporting arms museum in springfield, missouri. what i want people to come away