group. buckeye broad band supports c-span. giving you a front-row seat to democracy. next, united states air force patrick charles 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 historical association meeting. >> patrick charles is a former

marine and the author of the book "armed in america, a history of gun rights." thanks for being with us on c-span 3. how did the organization come about and why? >> well, they came about after the civil war where there's poor marketing by officers during it the war so two officers decided to form the nra for two purposes. one is to facilitate, build and grow long-range rifle ranges and assist markmanship. the florida initial sale so you know was kind of working to get appropriations from 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 enlish national rifle association, and they were -- this supposed to be the american version. the only thing that really differentiated the two to start off with was that you could start or build a rifle club locally or statewide and then you were an nra-affiliated club more or less. and those clubs would then compete in state, local and national matches. >> based on your research, would the early founders of the organization 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 mid-1960s that the heads of that organization could not see what the nra has become today. the nra, number one, it became a

political organization, not focused solely 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 that they did not want to be a partisan organization. however, today as we know they are very closely intertwined and bootstrapped to the republican party. >> and of course realizing state rights is one of our the fundamental foundations of our country but it is a patchwork of gun laws back then and today. and how does that influence or affect the role of the nra? >> well, it depends when you're talking about. early on the federal government was not involved in gun laws whatsoever. gun laws were all either a state or local level, primarily local. state laws would cover broad swaths of areas, you know,

dealers, maybe concealed carry, minors not shooting guns. but the local laws governed all 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 laws. the nra argued at the time that state governments should be the ones controlling firearms. >> so which state or states passed the first laws and when? >> that's a difficult question. i mean, if you're looking at gun laws it goes back to the colonies, back in the 18th century. you can find or even the early 17th century there's a couple of gun laws in the books. but those laws are basically either about gunpowder storage, where or where you cannot carry a gun, what kind of weapons you could or could not have. how far you could fire away from population, 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 started to become those modern laws 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 to your book, can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200-plus years? >> yeah, the original right isn't what we know it is 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 state rights and individuals. well, the constitution and states. you had the power of the militia.

george washington obviously wanted more power of state militias to control them during war. when it came to the states they were like no, we want full control. the concern of the full constitution was the federal government may have too much control of the state's militia emphasis the second amendment is more or less a reflection of that fear. the conception of liberty the founders understood was that, in order to understand liberty you needed to fight for that liberty, you needed to train for that liberty. a well-regulated militia, does not mean the same as an armed citizenry. it really does mean well trained and multiple militia commentators were talking about two important

aspects of the militia was train how they moved their legs. you understand there wasn't good accuracy with those rifles. maneuvering those forces in a way -- in the beginning of 19th century we start to get the individual conception that we more or less talk about today, 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 into court with the criminal law and slowly, but surely virtually -- not everyone but virtually every state court recognized some kind of individual right to arms. that right, however, was severely limited by what's called the state police power, which basically gives the state the power to legislation late in health, safety and welfare and

that includes preventing people from getting shot by bullets. so that continues to hold sway. that goes into the early 20th century. the nra really understands that kind of interpretation as well. and i believe it's 1939 the united states v. miller which is the supreme court first debate on the detail. nothing in depth. the united states is different because they addressed more at the heart of the issue, and it's very cryptic, but courts after the supreme court issued that decision all interpreted it as meaning the second amendment protects a collective rights not an individual right. that remained the status quo at least legally speaking. legally speaking until the 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. that right extends to self-defense. >> again, just to be clear,

during the 1920s and '30s is when we start 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 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. >> and let's go back even 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 they start talking about the second amendment, and 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 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 in 1908, but it didn't stay in the books very long. and that law is really important because new york at the 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 them and add them all up by populations they still did not equal 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've got to remember nra is organizing a charter out of new york. that's where most of their members are and headquarters are at. that's when they really start talking about the second amendment. >> and of course under the auspices of these weapons crossing borders in the 19th

century we had the 20th century we had the mob violence and gang violence. how did that affect the debate in this country? >> i think everybody in the united states agreed that 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 government was passing too many laws to catch the criminals that were law-abiding citizens and that extended to firearms. when they're debating that, while everyone agrees gangsters are a problem including the nra the nra believed maybe it's being financed by gangsters. conversely, you have people that are supporting gun control at that time, individuals more so

than a movement, but their argument is the reverse of that. they're saying, well, it's maybe the gangsters financing these sportsmen or nra. to stop the laws from being passed. so it's interesting no one disagrees that gangsters are the epicenter of why these gun laws really come to the foray, but both sides are using it as propaganda with no factual basis of support. >> when did the nra move to its origins today? was it world war ii, 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 if i was traveling from indiana to ohio, 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 uniformed. it was so popular that the nra convinced the new york assembly by overwhelming majorities to enact the legislation. not a super majority to 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, they started putting advertisements for recruitment, that were specifically then targeted at finance laws. that's the genesis of where the nra really becomes. but the nra for many decades after that, let me caution and say, in the 1930s, the attorney

general of the united states knew who the nra was in fighting firearm legislation. they became very well aware of what the nra was doing. the general american public, however, wasn't. so the nra was able to continue to do this for decades. it's not until jfk gets assassinated the american public gets a wake-up call and introduced to the nra that we have come to know today as one that fights firearm laws. >> how did a marine become a historian for the u.s. air force? >> well, the marine corp was stationed overseas, was actually what we called a marine security guard, protected embassies, from there, i got the international affairs bug, and then went to george washington. and george washington is probably the most political organization in there -- or political university in the country. you've got the law bug and then, you know, one thing led to another to lean myself back to

the air force in history, but i'm very fortunate to be serving with them and i've been very lucky to have served with a lot of these men and women. >> and we mentioned your book at the top of our conversation. if you could select one talking point, one takeaway from your book, what is it? >> well, i hope people take away is that, you know, the right to arms as we know it today or discuss it today is not the same as it was discussed 200 years ago, a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago. it's evolved, changed up to the times, and i also hope the other takeaway is the laws have changed at times to adapt to the environment, to gun violence. to changes in technology and whatnot, and that if you have -- whatever your side is, if you're pro-gun or pro-gun control or in

the middle somewhere the big takeaway from the book is that you have a conversation about it. there's things for anybody there's perspective they might take away. there's different perspectives to view as well. >> patrick charles, he's joining us in new york. we thank you for being with us. >> thank you, steve. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. buckeye broadband. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service as well as these other television

providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. sunday, c-span, views from house continues. three more members from congress share stories of what they saw, experienced that day. >> at that very moment when the capitol police officer announced we should take cover, i stood up in the mezzanine, representative gosar was objected to the electors. i shouted, this is because of you, i screamed it. and i think i was representing four years of angst and anxiety and anger, many of us saw this coming from a mile away, many in the country did, i think i

represented probably millions of americans who felt the same way. at that very moment the entire country including myself recognized the fragility of our democracy. i have great appreciation for the traditions and congress and decorum, i don't like to violate it. i don't regret it, because it's what i was feeling, four years of pent-up anxiety of what was transpiring in front of our eyes. >> january 6th, views from the house, sunday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org. or listen on the app. now on american artifacts, a visit to the nra's national firearms museum in fairfax, virginia, to see its collections of guns and l