Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Bookshelf Adam Winkler Gunfig

Political blog. Been hijacked to president ial because some governor is running for president right now. In my extracurricular life i am the president of the National Press clubs journalism institute, of which the crown jewel is the and libraries are important, because libraries are with the texas book festival is all about. The book festival raises money for Public Libraries and texas and for literacy programs, all of the books to buy benefit the libraries of the state of texas. I highly recommend that you buy gunfight. Our author will sign books after our program in the book signing tent a congress avenue. Ive been asked by the folks at cspan to ask you to turn off or silence your cellphones. We have had some problems earlier today. If you want to take out your concealed weapons now would be a good time as well, concealed weapons, if you take them out they are not concealed anymore. What we are here today to talk about, gunfight the battle over the right to bear arms in america. It is written by adam wing color. He is a professor of law at ucla. A specialist in american constitutional law. His wide ranging scholarship has touched on a diverse array of topics, including the right to bear arms, corporate political speech rights, Campaign Finance law, affirmative action and judicial independence. Adam winkler is a frequent contributor to the daily beast and the huffington post. His work has been cited and Numerous Supreme Court decision and his commentary has been featured in places as varied as cnn, New York Times and the wall street journal. His other published work includes coed inning the six volume encyclopedia of the american constitution. Gunfight has received outstanding reviews. It is truly a brought groundbreaking work. Here, to tell us more about it, is adam winkler. I will start with a basic question which is, what is the basic idea of the book . Thank you for the wonderful introduction. Thanks to the texas book festival for having me and all of you for being here as well. Gunfight weaves together the dramatic a grisham like legal drama behind a landmark Supreme Court case. The first Supreme Court case to clearly and unambiguously hold that Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own guns for personal protection. We leased together that story with stories of our remarkable, fascinating Hidden History of guns. In my research, i found that the right to bear arms is one of our oldest, most established Constitutional Rights. Yet at the same time, weve also always had gun control. Americans have always try to balance gun rights with Public Safety, and our efforts to balance deals two things have shaped america in fascinating and unexpected ways. I look at the lessons of our efforts to draw that balance between gun rights and Public Safety. Also i try to map out a way that we can break the current stalemate on guns by looking back to the past and understanding better how the right to bear arms has coexisted with gun control since the founding era. The book itself centers on a Supreme Court case, everyone knows about it, the district of columbia versus heller. Can you tell us what the facts were in that case, and why the case is so important . The Supreme Court had mentioned the Second Amendment over the years. It had very strenuously avoided ruling on what the meaning of the Second Amendment was. Despite the fact that we know in our culture everything ends up in the Supreme Court eventually, the Supreme Court was determined for many decades, not to rule on the Second Amendment. They just left that to the lower courts and to the legislatures. This hauer case was the first time, not only the Supreme Court unambiguously held the Second Amendment, protects an individuals right to own guns for personal protection, but the first time that the court struck down a law that a gun control law, for violating the Second Amendment. The law was struck down, it was a law in washington d. C. It was a ban on handguns. But also a ban on the use of long guns for anything but recreational purposes. So you get on a rifle or a shotgun, but you could only it had to be locked or disassembled and you can only unlock it or assemble it for a statutory jet statutory le authorized purpose is like target target shooting or hunting. A d. C. Court help specifically that if a burglar is breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble your gun for selfdefense and use it for selfdefense, because that was not a recreational purpose. You could take your gun and bank somebody over the head with it, but you are not actually allowed to shoot someone with it if they were threatening your life. So the Supreme Court stepped in and who ruled on this case. One of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorates and provide judicial protection for the nras view of the Second Amendment, the nra was opposed to the lawyers and the lawsuit from the getgo and did everything they could to stop the case for more was going to the Supreme Court. Why was that . It is counter intuitive and fascinating. Why would the nra have not wanted this case to go all the way . The nra stated reason to the lawyers involved in the cases that they were afraid of losing. They did not want their view of the Second Amendment rejected by the United States Supreme Court, especially the Supreme Court, which has a majority of republican appointees, it is a conservative court. They did not want this court to reject that view. That would not help the nra. The lawyers involved in the case were a group of three libertarian lawyers who had no real substantial connections with the gun rights movement. They had not argued or litigated gun cases before. They suspected that maybe the nra was fearful actually, of winning. That the nra, they told me and interviews, the nra survives on crisis triggered and crisis driven fundraising that warrants gun owners that the government is coming to get your guns. The Supreme Court said the government cannot come to get your guns. But with that due to the nras crisis driven fundraising . Whatever the reason, it is clear that the nra fought tooth and nail to keep this case from ever going to the Supreme Court. You were talking earlier about people using guns for personal protection being one of the most oldest established rights. The Supreme Court had not ruled as you have said, over these past decades on a definitive meaning of the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court never ruled on it, it has been more than two centuries since the bill of rights was created, why is the right to bear arms such an old and established tradition . Its interesting. The Second Amendment has been the subject of so much debate over recent years about whether it protects the right of individuals to own guns for personal protection, or a collective right of state militias to organize and to form without federal interference. But what i found in my research for gunfight was the right to bear arms is one of our oldest, most established Constitutional Rights regardless of the Second Amendment. Every state has its own constitution, and almost every one of those states protects the right to bear arms in its state constitution. Clearly a right that is not associated with militia service. Some of those state provisions go back to the original founding, many of them came in the early 1800s and mid 1800s, the states joined the union and added these provisions into their constitutions. In addition, what i found the research my book makes you think about the Second Amendment. The 14th amendment of the constitution which was one of the provisions adopted right after the civil war to guarantee the freedom in their equal rights. The 14th amendment was clearly design and part, to protect the right of the friedman to have guns. Right after the civil war, racist whites in the south were trying to take away black writes the freemens right to have guns for personal protection. The framers of the 14th amendment said repeatedly that one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to protect the friedmans right to bear arms. You have all these historical discussions over American History on the right to bear arms. What kind of gun control did our Founding Fathers have . What was their concept of where we would head with personal use and ownership of guns . The Founding Fathers barely believed in civilian ownership of firearms. They did not believe in a standing army. They thought it would be used correctly by the president or whoever was governing to run roughshod over the liberties of the people. Again they thought that a guarantee of democratic liberty was in an armed populace. They believed in the citizens militia, the idea that when called out to serve, grab your gun and be prepared to fight in an instance. Hence, the minuteman of revolutionary fame. At the same time, they also had gun regulation. They barred large portion of the population from owning guns, not only slaves, but free back three blacks who were barred because they thought they would be a risk to Public Safety and join with their slave brethrens in revolt against the masters. They also were willing to disarm lawabiding white people, mainly loyalists. We are not talking about traders. People who are fighting for the british. We are talking about what historians estimate were 40 of the American Population who were opposed to the revolution and that it was a bad idea to take on the most powerful country in the world, great britain, and if you did not swear oath of loyalty to the revolution, it would be forcibly disarmed. They also had a numerous other kinds of restrictions on gun owners that came in the form of militia laws. They declared that anyone, any male who is a free mail between 18 to 45 was a member of the militia, and had to go outfit themselves with their own private firearm. It was their own version of the obamas health care individual. Framers did not require you to go out and buy insurance but buy a gun. Take us through history from the time of the Founding Fathers. How did america and the American Government balance the sense of the right to bear arms with what we would call gun control with curbs on how you could own rectory . As i mentioned, the Founding Fathers had such curbs. We think today of the south, a sebastian of support for gun rights. But some of americans earlier gun control laws came in the south. Fans for instance on concealed carry of firearms which became popular in the early 1800s in the south. Those laws were not about disarming African Americans. They were already disarmed in the south. But those laws were designed to discourage white men from getting into duels, honor duels which were commonplace in the early 1800s, and lawmakers sought to stop that. There has been gun control throughout American History. I tell the story in the book about the wild west. The wild west had some of the most restrictive gun gun control laws in the nation. Everyone out in the wilderness, untamed wilderness had guns. So much so, that stage coach or drivers would ride with someone at great expense with a shotgun in their hands. Kids still say, im riding shotgun when they get in the front seat. That comes from the wild west era. When you came to a town with a civilized folks lived, you had to check your gun where you check your coat at a cold restaurant in winter. Not a cold restaurant in a winter in austin where it is 90 degrees today, but maybe up on the east coast. Where did you check your weapons . You had to check them with the sheriff or leave them at the stables with your horses. In fact, as i was researching the book, there is a great photograph in the book of dodge city taken during the height of the wild west period in 18 seventies and 18 eighties. It is a picture of dodge city. It looks exactly it looks exactly like dodge city and what you would expect it to look like in the wild west. Little horse time front of the saloon. The surprising thing is what lies in the middle of the street is a big billboard. The carrying of firearms strictly poker hit prohibited. If you came to the wild west town you are not allowed to be a gun slinger with guns on each ship with a rifle in your hand. I get the sense that its like going to arrest right now, where you put your umbrella on a rack when you go into town. What we know, did people still each others pistols, or was it like an umbrella . You picked up your own umbrellas and you left town . Im sure there was plenty of thievery in the wild west with guns but no, you would get them and give them to the Law Enforcement officer. I did not put the picture in there, but i found a photograph from a bar in juneau alaska that has a handgun who is checked none other by why it herb when he came to visit juneau. He had to leave town for reasons unknown in the middle of the night before the Sheriffs Office opened again, and the sheriff still to the state, they still have the gun that he checked and was not able to collect. Why do you think our concepts of the wild west, gunslingers are so wrong . What is the reason that we have this romanticized or fantasized version of it. When we think of the wild west filled with gunfights night and day. Guns blazing. We remember incidents like the shootout at the ok corral, famous shootout with wider where three people died and four people were wounded. Obviously, that has been memorialized in movies and film ever since but the image of the wild west is really quite wrong in fundamental ways. It is wrong for the same reasons why these places had gun control. If you were a small town on the outskirts of civilization, what did you want to become . You want to become a bigger town filled with more sliced people. You want to attract businessmen, investors and a good family that could come and create stability in your town. Small towns of todays the want those same things. So that is why the enacted gun control laws so that people beyond Business People would feel safe and families move there, because they thought the community was a safe community. After the frontier was closed, the same places, emphasized and glorified the violent incidents of their past to attract tourists in the businesses to serve them. That is why if you go to tombstone, arizona today, you can see a reenactment of the shoot out of the ok corral five times a day. The reason why we know so much about the ok corral were three people died it was because it was so extraordinary at the time. It was not common place that you would have a shootout. In fact, historians have gone back and figured out that if these towns, like tombstone, arizona, deadwood, david dodge city, the average less than two murders a year. Gunfights were not daily. They were annual events. It is hard to have a discussion of guns, gun rights and gun control without talking about the nra. In the past week, the nra has been in the news because that is a National Restaurant association. In texas when you say nra, its only the National Rifle association. Can you give a little historical background on the nra and guns and gun control. Its creation and i read that it was once supporter of control gun control. Can you explain that . The nra today is known for being a very rarely compromising opponent of gun control. Really it wasnt always this way. It was founded after the civil war by two Union Soldiers who were convinced that poor union marksmanship was had last it was why warhead, lasted so long and wanted to improve marksmanship training. In the 19 twenties and thirties the nra actually went out and drafted and endorsed gun control laws, restricted laws requiring anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to have a license, and only allowing those licenses to go to people who were suitable people with a proper reason for carrying their firearms. In fact, in the 19 i did some research and found in 1934, it when the federal Government Congress passed its first major federal gun control law, the National Firearms act of 1934 which outlawed gangsters it was restricted access to gangster weapons, machine and sawed off shotguns, the president called frederik at the time was asked to testify about it. He was asked specifically, thats the Second Amendment have any relevance to the National Firearms act . His answer from the perspective of today is quite remarkable. He said, i have not given it any steady from that point of view. So the head of the nra had never thought about whether the most farreaching federal gun law to date was impacted by the National Press<\/a> clubs journalism institute, of which the crown jewel is the and libraries are important, because libraries are with the texas book festival is all about. The book festival raises money for Public Libraries<\/a> and texas and for literacy programs, all of the books to buy benefit the libraries of the state of texas. I highly recommend that you buy gunfight. Our author will sign books after our program in the book signing tent a congress avenue. Ive been asked by the folks at cspan to ask you to turn off or silence your cellphones. We have had some problems earlier today. If you want to take out your concealed weapons now would be a good time as well, concealed weapons, if you take them out they are not concealed anymore. What we are here today to talk about, gunfight the battle over the right to bear arms in america. It is written by adam wing color. He is a professor of law at ucla. A specialist in american constitutional law. His wide ranging scholarship has touched on a diverse array of topics, including the right to bear arms, corporate political speech rights, Campaign Finance<\/a> law, affirmative action and judicial independence. Adam winkler is a frequent contributor to the daily beast and the huffington post. His work has been cited and Numerous Supreme Court<\/a> decision and his commentary has been featured in places as varied as cnn, New York Times<\/a> and the wall street journal. His other published work includes coed inning the six volume encyclopedia of the american constitution. Gunfight has received outstanding reviews. It is truly a brought groundbreaking work. Here, to tell us more about it, is adam winkler. I will start with a basic question which is, what is the basic idea of the book . Thank you for the wonderful introduction. Thanks to the texas book festival for having me and all of you for being here as well. Gunfight weaves together the dramatic a grisham like legal drama behind a landmark Supreme Court<\/a> case. The first Supreme Court<\/a> case to clearly and unambiguously hold that Second Amendment<\/a> protects an individuals right to own guns for personal protection. We leased together that story with stories of our remarkable, fascinating Hidden History<\/a> of guns. In my research, i found that the right to bear arms is one of our oldest, most established Constitutional Rights<\/a>. Yet at the same time, weve also always had gun control. Americans have always try to balance gun rights with Public Safety<\/a>, and our efforts to balance deals two things have shaped america in fascinating and unexpected ways. I look at the lessons of our efforts to draw that balance between gun rights and Public Safety<\/a>. Also i try to map out a way that we can break the current stalemate on guns by looking back to the past and understanding better how the right to bear arms has coexisted with gun control since the founding era. The book itself centers on a Supreme Court<\/a> case, everyone knows about it, the district of columbia versus heller. Can you tell us what the facts were in that case, and why the case is so important . The Supreme Court<\/a> had mentioned the Second Amendment<\/a> over the years. It had very strenuously avoided ruling on what the meaning of the Second Amendment<\/a> was. Despite the fact that we know in our culture everything ends up in the Supreme Court<\/a> eventually, the Supreme Court<\/a> was determined for many decades, not to rule on the Second Amendment<\/a>. They just left that to the lower courts and to the legislatures. This hauer case was the first time, not only the Supreme Court<\/a> unambiguously held the Second Amendment<\/a>, protects an individuals right to own guns for personal protection, but the first time that the court struck down a law that a gun control law, for violating the Second Amendment<\/a>. The law was struck down, it was a law in washington d. C. It was a ban on handguns. But also a ban on the use of long guns for anything but recreational purposes. So you get on a rifle or a shotgun, but you could only it had to be locked or disassembled and you can only unlock it or assemble it for a statutory jet statutory le authorized purpose is like target target shooting or hunting. A d. C. Court help specifically that if a burglar is breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble your gun for selfdefense and use it for selfdefense, because that was not a recreational purpose. You could take your gun and bank somebody over the head with it, but you are not actually allowed to shoot someone with it if they were threatening your life. So the Supreme Court<\/a> stepped in and who ruled on this case. One of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorates and provide judicial protection for the nras view of the Second Amendment<\/a>, the nra was opposed to the lawyers and the lawsuit from the getgo and did everything they could to stop the case for more was going to the Supreme Court<\/a>. Why was that . It is counter intuitive and fascinating. Why would the nra have not wanted this case to go all the way . The nra stated reason to the lawyers involved in the cases that they were afraid of losing. They did not want their view of the Second Amendment<\/a> rejected by the United States<\/a> Supreme Court<\/a>, especially the Supreme Court<\/a>, which has a majority of republican appointees, it is a conservative court. They did not want this court to reject that view. That would not help the nra. The lawyers involved in the case were a group of three libertarian lawyers who had no real substantial connections with the gun rights movement. They had not argued or litigated gun cases before. They suspected that maybe the nra was fearful actually, of winning. That the nra, they told me and interviews, the nra survives on crisis triggered and crisis driven fundraising that warrants gun owners that the government is coming to get your guns. The Supreme Court<\/a> said the government cannot come to get your guns. But with that due to the nras crisis driven fundraising . Whatever the reason, it is clear that the nra fought tooth and nail to keep this case from ever going to the Supreme Court<\/a>. You were talking earlier about people using guns for personal protection being one of the most oldest established rights. The Supreme Court<\/a> had not ruled as you have said, over these past decades on a definitive meaning of the Second Amendment<\/a>. If the Supreme Court<\/a> never ruled on it, it has been more than two centuries since the bill of rights was created, why is the right to bear arms such an old and established tradition . Its interesting. The Second Amendment<\/a> has been the subject of so much debate over recent years about whether it protects the right of individuals to own guns for personal protection, or a collective right of state militias to organize and to form without federal interference. But what i found in my research for gunfight was the right to bear arms is one of our oldest, most established Constitutional Rights<\/a> regardless of the Second Amendment<\/a>. Every state has its own constitution, and almost every one of those states protects the right to bear arms in its state constitution. Clearly a right that is not associated with militia service. Some of those state provisions go back to the original founding, many of them came in the early 1800s and mid 1800s, the states joined the union and added these provisions into their constitutions. In addition, what i found the research my book makes you think about the Second Amendment<\/a>. The 14th amendment of the constitution which was one of the provisions adopted right after the civil war to guarantee the freedom in their equal rights. The 14th amendment was clearly design and part, to protect the right of the friedman to have guns. Right after the civil war, racist whites in the south were trying to take away black writes the freemens right to have guns for personal protection. The framers of the 14th amendment said repeatedly that one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to protect the friedmans right to bear arms. You have all these historical discussions over American History<\/a> on the right to bear arms. What kind of gun control did our Founding Fathers<\/a> have . What was their concept of where we would head with personal use and ownership of guns . The Founding Fathers<\/a> barely believed in civilian ownership of firearms. They did not believe in a standing army. They thought it would be used correctly by the president or whoever was governing to run roughshod over the liberties of the people. Again they thought that a guarantee of democratic liberty was in an armed populace. They believed in the citizens militia, the idea that when called out to serve, grab your gun and be prepared to fight in an instance. Hence, the minuteman of revolutionary fame. At the same time, they also had gun regulation. They barred large portion of the population from owning guns, not only slaves, but free back three blacks who were barred because they thought they would be a risk to Public Safety<\/a> and join with their slave brethrens in revolt against the masters. They also were willing to disarm lawabiding white people, mainly loyalists. We are not talking about traders. People who are fighting for the british. We are talking about what historians estimate were 40 of the American Population<\/a> who were opposed to the revolution and that it was a bad idea to take on the most powerful country in the world, great britain, and if you did not swear oath of loyalty to the revolution, it would be forcibly disarmed. They also had a numerous other kinds of restrictions on gun owners that came in the form of militia laws. They declared that anyone, any male who is a free mail between 18 to 45 was a member of the militia, and had to go outfit themselves with their own private firearm. It was their own version of the obamas health care individual. Framers did not require you to go out and buy insurance but buy a gun. Take us through history from the time of the Founding Fathers<\/a>. How did america and the American Government<\/a> balance the sense of the right to bear arms with what we would call gun control with curbs on how you could own rectory . As i mentioned, the Founding Fathers<\/a> had such curbs. We think today of the south, a sebastian of support for gun rights. But some of americans earlier gun control laws came in the south. Fans for instance on concealed carry of firearms which became popular in the early 1800s in the south. Those laws were not about disarming African Americans<\/a>. They were already disarmed in the south. But those laws were designed to discourage white men from getting into duels, honor duels which were commonplace in the early 1800s, and lawmakers sought to stop that. There has been gun control throughout American History<\/a>. I tell the story in the book about the wild west. The wild west had some of the most restrictive gun gun control laws in the nation. Everyone out in the wilderness, untamed wilderness had guns. So much so, that stage coach or drivers would ride with someone at great expense with a shotgun in their hands. Kids still say, im riding shotgun when they get in the front seat. That comes from the wild west era. When you came to a town with a civilized folks lived, you had to check your gun where you check your coat at a cold restaurant in winter. Not a cold restaurant in a winter in austin where it is 90 degrees today, but maybe up on the east coast. Where did you check your weapons . You had to check them with the sheriff or leave them at the stables with your horses. In fact, as i was researching the book, there is a great photograph in the book of dodge city taken during the height of the wild west period in 18 seventies and 18 eighties. It is a picture of dodge city. It looks exactly it looks exactly like dodge city and what you would expect it to look like in the wild west. Little horse time front of the saloon. The surprising thing is what lies in the middle of the street is a big billboard. The carrying of firearms strictly poker hit prohibited. If you came to the wild west town you are not allowed to be a gun slinger with guns on each ship with a rifle in your hand. I get the sense that its like going to arrest right now, where you put your umbrella on a rack when you go into town. What we know, did people still each others pistols, or was it like an umbrella . You picked up your own umbrellas and you left town . Im sure there was plenty of thievery in the wild west with guns but no, you would get them and give them to the Law Enforcement<\/a> officer. I did not put the picture in there, but i found a photograph from a bar in juneau alaska that has a handgun who is checked none other by why it herb when he came to visit juneau. He had to leave town for reasons unknown in the middle of the night before the Sheriffs Office<\/a> opened again, and the sheriff still to the state, they still have the gun that he checked and was not able to collect. Why do you think our concepts of the wild west, gunslingers are so wrong . What is the reason that we have this romanticized or fantasized version of it. When we think of the wild west filled with gunfights night and day. Guns blazing. We remember incidents like the shootout at the ok corral, famous shootout with wider where three people died and four people were wounded. Obviously, that has been memorialized in movies and film ever since but the image of the wild west is really quite wrong in fundamental ways. It is wrong for the same reasons why these places had gun control. If you were a small town on the outskirts of civilization, what did you want to become . You want to become a bigger town filled with more sliced people. You want to attract businessmen, investors and a good family that could come and create stability in your town. Small towns of todays the want those same things. So that is why the enacted gun control laws so that people beyond Business People<\/a> would feel safe and families move there, because they thought the community was a safe community. After the frontier was closed, the same places, emphasized and glorified the violent incidents of their past to attract tourists in the businesses to serve them. That is why if you go to tombstone, arizona today, you can see a reenactment of the shoot out of the ok corral five times a day. The reason why we know so much about the ok corral were three people died it was because it was so extraordinary at the time. It was not common place that you would have a shootout. In fact, historians have gone back and figured out that if these towns, like tombstone, arizona, deadwood, david dodge city, the average less than two murders a year. Gunfights were not daily. They were annual events. It is hard to have a discussion of guns, gun rights and gun control without talking about the nra. In the past week, the nra has been in the news because that is a National Restaurant<\/a> association. In texas when you say nra, its only the National Rifle<\/a> association. Can you give a little historical background on the nra and guns and gun control. Its creation and i read that it was once supporter of control gun control. Can you explain that . The nra today is known for being a very rarely compromising opponent of gun control. Really it wasnt always this way. It was founded after the civil war by two Union Soldiers<\/a> who were convinced that poor union marksmanship was had last it was why warhead, lasted so long and wanted to improve marksmanship training. In the 19 twenties and thirties the nra actually went out and drafted and endorsed gun control laws, restricted laws requiring anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to have a license, and only allowing those licenses to go to people who were suitable people with a proper reason for carrying their firearms. In fact, in the 19 i did some research and found in 1934, it when the federal Government Congress<\/a> passed its first major federal gun control law, the National Firearms<\/a> act of 1934 which outlawed gangsters it was restricted access to gangster weapons, machine and sawed off shotguns, the president called frederik at the time was asked to testify about it. He was asked specifically, thats the Second Amendment<\/a> have any relevance to the National Firearms<\/a> act . His answer from the perspective of today is quite remarkable. He said, i have not given it any steady from that point of view. So the head of the nra had never thought about whether the most farreaching federal gun law to date was impacted by the Second Amendment<\/a>. All that changed really in the 1960s early 19 seventies, when the nra underwent a radical transformation and became a much more politically active and hard lined let me ask why, because my first consciousness of guns and gun control was 1968 with the assassination of robert f. Kennedy. And then Congress Passing<\/a> the most sweeping gun legislation, at least of that era. Did that play any part of it . What were the factors that lead the nra to pivot on the issue of gun controls . You are absolutely right to talk about the gun control act of 1968 which was the next major federal gun law passed after the federal laws of the 1930s. The law required various kinds of licensing for gun dealers, than the importation of certain kinds of cheap firearms that were so shaded with urban youth crime and whatnot. That law really sparked and other laws of that era, really sparked a movement of people who were really opposed to growing gun control. The nra, the head of the nra in the 1970s, maxwell rich who endorsed the gun control act, not all of its provisions but he endorsed the act overall in the american rifleman at the nra signature publication. Maxwell rich divides is a plan. He says i want to retreat from political activity, move the nras headquarters out of washington and move it to Colorado Springs<\/a> where we can focus on outdoorsmans activities and hunting and recreational shooting. This angered a group of citizens in the nra membership an nra organization who thought guns were not primarily about hunting, but were about personal protection in an era of rising crime rates. This group of dissidents led by a man named mr. Carter, led a dramatic middle of the night coup of the organization. They went to the annual Membership Meeting<\/a> in 1977 and orchestrated a well thought out, carefully devised plan to oust the entire leadership of the nra and replaced them with the new dissident hardliners. When they took office, they recommitted to political activity and made the Second Amendment<\/a> really the heart and soul of the nra. When did moses himself become involved, Charleston Heston<\/a> . Charlton headstone became one of the great spokesman for the nra. Those famous pictures, from my cold dead hands. One of the things i found, and this is directly going to not going to answer your question. Charleston hudson was in the first to say who said hey, the first thing the first thing i found in research and gun rights is among blacks after the civil war, that same attitude was very prevalent. You will only take my gun from my cold dead hands. Before the civil war, blacks in the south had always been disarmed. They were never allowed to own guns. But during a civil war for the very first time, southern blacks get their hands on guns. Some serve in the union army and the army cannot afford to pay its soldiers, so it allows it soldiers to take their guns home with them and deduct how much the cost for the back wages that the union army owes them. Other African Americans<\/a> buy guns on the marketplace that is literally flooded with firearms that had been produced for the war. But once the war ended, had not the same necessity. Racist organizations like the kkk formed right after the civil war, specifically with the goal of gun control, with getting the guns away from African Americans<\/a>. As long as the freedmen had guns, they would be able to fight back. They took to gathering in big groups, going out at night, and costume in the skies, large numbers, the reason they were in large numbers because the African Americans<\/a> had guns, and they want to outnumber the African Americans<\/a>. African americans at that time refused to give up their guns and fought valiantly to keep their firearms. Also sort of sharing Charles Heston<\/a> view, from my cold dead hands. Unfortunately for some, they found their guns were taken from their cold that hands. Your book flashes forward 100 years from that to that of the turmoil of the 1960s and makes to me a surprising connection between the black panthers and the rise of the modern gun rights movement. Can you explain that a little bit . I tell the story in gunfight, one of the most remarkable incidents of history of guns and gun control, which was the day in may of 1967 when a group of 30 black panthers go to the california state capital in sacramento with rifles, shotguns and pistols. They walked right up the main steps of the capitol building, walked right into the capital and walked right into the legislative chamber. That is in session with the lawmakers where they are all there. The black panthers were not there to do violence. They were there is a political protests, as california was considering the adoption of new gun control laws. Laws that were designed to disarm the black panthers from roaming around oakland with their guns openly displayed. That law, the law to disarm the panthers was supported, not just by democrats but by conservatives in california as well. In fact, the governor at the time strongly supported the law and said he did not see any reason why someone should be carrying guns on the streets in america today. That governor would go on to become president of the United States<\/a>, ronald reagan. Reagan was a big endorser of this gun control law. It was the laws this law and laws like the gun control act that many people at the time that was not really designed to control guns, but to control urban blacks who were writing in 1967, the worst race riots in the history committing a lot of crime. Increasing crime rates especially in urban areas in the 1960s. These laws that were designed to restrict access to black radicals in urban areas, like the black panthers, and ended up sparking a backlash among white rural conservatives who are convinced that the government was coming to get their guns next. I want to take you forward from there to the debates over gun control and gun rights that we have seen in the last five or ten years. Why do you think the advocates of the Second Amendment<\/a> rights, the rate bear arms have become so dominant . There is just about zero chance of passing in any state legislature or in congress, anything that would smack of gun control today. What has changed politically over the past decade or two to put us in that situation . I think the major push for gun control in the 1960s, especially in the north early 19 seventies, was a reflection and part of sort of a Great Society<\/a> philosophy that, there are social problems. The government could solve those problems with new legislation. I think that over the course of the 19 seventies and 19 eighties, more and more people lost faith with that idea. I think some people think the nra, gun lobbies is very powerful because they have a lot of money. The reason why they have a lot of money its because they have a lot of members, and they have a lot of people who believe very strongly in their political agenda and support that agenda. The reason why the nra so strong todays because millions of voters go out to vote on election day with this issue in mind and this being the only issue that they really want to base their vote on. If you could leverage that kind of constituency in american elections, you will be incredibly successful. So much so that i think that maybe the Current Administration<\/a> in washington wishes to enact more gun control laws, but they received an f rating from the brady centers, the nations leading Gun Control Group<\/a> after two years, because they had only loosened gun control laws in those first two years. I think it has become one of those issues especially for democrats, they just do not want to touch that issue because they see thats a political loser. Looking at the debate today, youve taken us from the American Revolution<\/a> to 2011. What do you think is wrong with the debates that we are having today over gun rights and how would you recast or would you improve the Public Discourse<\/a> on guns . I think one of the problems that the gun debate suffers from is that it has really been dominated by extremists on both sides of the aisle. We often think that gun rights supporters being very extreme in their opposition to gun control, unwilling to support gun laws because they think even if this law might be a good lie, it is going to lead to ultimately, down a slippery slope toward civilian disarmament. I think the other side has been unreasonable over the years as well. Uncontrolled supporters have often sought to take all the guns a way to do what washington d. C. Did in 1976 and ban handguns and made other guns not useful for selfdefense. And even after that, became obvious, was an unrealistic agenda, which support often ineffective and sometimes frankly silly laws that really could not hope to reduce gun crime. What i think is that, and i am hopeful, i argue in the book as the heller case. We mentioned it earlier on in the discussion. It might be an opening towards a new future in the gun debate, when where peoples right to have a firearm for selfdefense is protected and secured by the Supreme Court<\/a> in the way that other civil rights are protected. But at the same time, creating room for lawmakers to pass effective gun control laws that do not go too far. I am hopeful that maybe this heller case could be the opening that helps to break that political stalemate over guns. We want to hear from the audience. Anyone who is here, if you have a question, please go to the microphone over here and we will open up the floor. You got it. The tactical question. Justice kagan have pretty explicitly said that they think was heller given the opportunity they would overturn it. Do you think it is still in flux . I guess all the constitutional law is, but do you see it as something that will be enduring or that might in fact very quickly and usually go by the wayside . Its very hard to say what is going to happen in the short term. I dont think it will be overturned. You never know what happens with appointments. Howler was a five four decision. There was a subsequent decision in 2010 that said the Second Amendment<\/a> applied equally to state local governments however dealt with local governments. And that case was also five to four. Any kind of judicial appointment might change that. I do not think the democrats really have a big or lots of gained by pushing for nominees that would be hostile to the right to the bear arms. I think especially because those decisions were five to four, republicans in the senate and gun rights supporters on the democratic side are going to be very unlikely to support nominees that could change that vote from five to four. I am hopeful that in the long run, that this is the kind of decision that is seen as something that helps american politics move forward. And thus will be accepted by both sides of the issue. Earlier today, there was a panel on the narco drug wars. Part of that discussion was talking about how a lot of the weapons being used originate here in the United States<\/a>. I was wondering if you had any insights as two ways that we could control that without infringing too much on Second Amendment<\/a> rights, and also made it acceptable to both parties. Right now, i think there is probably not a lot of gun control laws that you could realistic get enacted that will have any major effect on these mexican drug cartels and the war that is going on on the other side of our border. He administration has tried to adopt some new reporting requirements for gun dealers in that area, but that effort has really been sidetracked because of this emerging scandal that has come about, the fast and furious scandals about botched gun stain that allowed guns to go to these mexican cartels under the watch of the atf, but then atf lost track of these guns. I think so long is that issue is going on, i think it is a growing scandal, i think it will be a much bigger scandal in the next six months than it was in the past six months. I dont think there is much that can be done in that realm, but obviously we have been trying to close the border, keeping drugs from coming in. We might need to spend some time thinking about what is getting out as well, and limiting the ability of people to export guns to mexico. Next question. I have two questions. You can choose to answer either one. How easy is it to buy guns in d. C. And to, can you contrast our gun restrictions to a place like britain where they have a series of looting. In district of columbia it is still very difficult to buy firearms. The district of columbia, after the heller case was decided, did not exactly throw up its arms and say okay, we will have liberal gun laws. They passed a series of regulations that are currently running their way through the Supreme Court<\/a>. We will see what happens with those particular provisions. It is difficult for the district of columbia to get your hands lawfully on a firearm. I will say this. Washington d. C. Banned handguns in 1776. Ten years later when i lived in washington d. C. , it was known as the murder capital in the states. Even though even though today you can probably get a gun easily in washington d. C. If you are willing to buy when illegally. Legally it is more difficult. With regards to great britain, they got their theyve had restrictive licensing and Registration Requirements<\/a> for since the 1920s. As a result, theyve gotten very few fire arms in great britain. There is probably many underground firearms as well, but it is very difficult to own a firearm. The difference is i think they got their hands on their gun problem if you will, in the 1920s when there was only a couple hundred thousand guns there. Theres 280 million guns in america. That is almost one per person, and it is more than one per adult. I think the idea that we can get rid of all those guns is a foolish idea. It ignores the lessons in the history that we have had from prohibition. We try to outlaw alcohol and it was a terrible disaster. We try to outlaw drugs with the lot war on drugs. I dont know how you feel about it. I think its been a terrible disaster. It leads to criminalization of activity that people are going to continue to engage in. The creation of a huge underground black market that is fed by criminal gangs. We should not try to get rid of all those guns. It would be a huge mistake in the same way that getting rid of alcohol and drugs would be. I also have two questions. Can you talk a little bit about the disconnect. There are surveys that show that the ranking file of the nra is a lot less stringent than the leadership of the nra, and second, it seems like a lot of the activity in this area right now is a lot of the big city mayors, like mayor bloomberg, former dick maher daily, and chicago. Can you talk about that a little bit . Sure. The disconnect between the nra and its members it is longstanding and well recognized that if you pull gun owners and pull nra members and particular, you will find much higher support for things like improving background checks, closing what they call the terrorist loophole, also maybe you hear a lot about there are no loopholes for gun shows. Gunshots have to operate under the same rules as anywhere else where they sell guns and guns are sold. It turns out that if you are not a federally licensed dealer in the business of selling guns, you do not have to conduct a background check. If you do not want to have a background check you could go to a gun show but you could go to other places and buy through classified ads, meet someone at a gun range and buy their gun. Theres other ways to do it. Its not really a gunshot public grandchildren public. A majority of our members would support closing that loophole and requiring a background check for every legal gun purchase in america. Why that difference is . I think a lot of people in the nra do support gun control, but the nra leadership does not see a lot to gain by supporting gun control. In fact when members of the gun lobbying supported gun control measures, theyve often found themselves losing a lot of business by the most die hard gun rights advocates and gun enthusiasts to buy a lot of guns. I am hopeful that if the right to bear arms by the Supreme Court<\/a> is protected and that basic right is not challenged. Gun owners become more convinced that their rights are secure. That the nra leadership, and the leadership of other gunnwright organizations will also become less worried about the slippery slope towards total disarmament. You had a second question about big city mayors . The gun problem in america is predominantly a suicide problem. Half the gun deaths in america, a little over half our suicides. Then of the homicides, half of those are gang or recidivist criminal related. We have a gun problem in america . Primarily it is a gang problem in america. We have gangs that use guns too often and that is where the gun violence that really affects urban cities, urban areas, much more so than rural places, why those mayors want gun control. They want to be able to make their streets safer. Mark twain, famously said can pick up an unloaded risk it from over the fireplace and bag his grandmother every time. What are the statistics for accidental shootings within gun holders. Much more likely to enter a friend or Family Member<\/a> and someone breaking in . What is the story . For all of the prominence that accidental shootings get in the literature and media, it turns out to be a very small fraction of gun deaths every year. Obviously, we know does this happen. We read stories about some child who finds a gun that his parents left on their bedroom night stand and shoots a friend with it. Accidental shootings do happen. I do not think that given the small number of incidents, that this is something that is of primary or predominant concern, when there is so much gang killing and suicide, that might be better worth our attention. Where there are people, far more people far more people die in swimming pools then gun accidents. I hope people are swimming in swimming pools on a hot houston day rather than playing with guns. Otherwise, gun accidents are overemphasize in terms of their importance. The real issue is recidivist criminals. I would like to ask a question about the heller case and the aftermath. View britain, the aftermath of the heller case has not been exactly what the nra and gun rights supporters had expected. Can you explain why that is . The Supreme Court<\/a> in the heller case defied both the extremes in the gun debate. Although gun rights advocates were extolling the decision of when it was decided and gun control supporters were promoting the decision when it was decided, it has not spelled the end of gun control in america. I think the opinion goes out of its way to make clear that while there is a right to bear an arm in selfdefense, there still is room for good Public Safety<\/a> laws that regulate without banning guns. Since heller was decided there had been a little more than 300 federal Court Decisions<\/a> on the constitutionality of any number of gun control laws since 2008. The courts have uphold all of the laws. Only a tiny fractions of the law were invalidated. It is likely to continue to be the case that the courts will straight down outliers. Really unusual unusual and aggressive gun control laws Like Washington<\/a> d. C. Had. The only city in the entire nation that really barred the use of any firearms for selfdefense. Well continue to strike down some outliers. As long as gun control supporters keep supporting silly and ineffective laws you will have these. There is a case out of chicago where chicago had its hands on ban struck down after the heller case. Chicagos, that you can have a handgun, as long as its registered. To register it, you have to do an hour of training on a gun range. And another provision of the law outlaws the operation of any gun range in the city of chicago. Well, come on. Are you serious . So that law was struck down, as it should have been struck down. It is a silly and effective law that is really designed to deny people the right to have a firearm for selfdefense. I think we will see those kinds of laws struck down, but we are not going to see a try down for backgrounds checks, courts striking down restrictions two machine guns. We are not going to see the Supreme Court<\/a> say that felons or domestic abusers can have access to guns. I just think that is not likely to happen. I want to say thank you too adam winkler. This has been with the most detailed and balanced discussions of guns that i have heard in recent years. Thank you to all of you for coming. applause you are watching American History<\/a> tv on cspan 3. Up next, a historian with the u. S. Air force, on the history of the National Rifle<\/a> association. This is from the american historical Associations Annual<\/a> meeting. Patrick charles is a former marine and now Senior Historian<\/a> for the u. S. Air force and the author of the book armed in america, the history of gun","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803206.us.archive.org\/14\/items\/CSPAN3_20200612_010300_History_Bookshelf_Adam_Winkler_Gunfight\/CSPAN3_20200612_010300_History_Bookshelf_Adam_Winkler_Gunfight.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20200612_010300_History_Bookshelf_Adam_Winkler_Gunfight_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}