Make up your own mind and we are doing this on a range of media platforms and want you to please check out our superb we the people podcast which is getting up to 100,000 downloads and bring together top liberal and conservative scholars to debate the issues of the week and i want you to come back over the next few weeks to the Constitution Center and follow the programs online as we have an extraordinary range of debates and programs. Coming up on june 26, we have a new program cosponsored with our friends in the intelligence about the constitutionality of the campaignfinance reform. On june 20 the prominent lawyers will come to discuss their new book about Marriage Equality and lorenz will be here to discuss his new book and on june 16 we have a program about the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age that will feature those that argued before the Supreme Court to case the court is about to decide and you will hear from both of them before the Court Decides its case. Ladies and gentlemen its hard to think of a constitutional issue more hotly contest and important in American Life than questions involving the historical meaning and the contemporary significance of the Second Amendment and i cannot imagine two People Better qualified in america to give you the best arguments on all sides of this important debate so that you can make up your own mind and after we tal talked for a bi will ask you to write down any questions you have integrated team and you will be able to interact with our guests. Im delighted to introduce the founder and partner. Allen argued the case before the Supreme Court, the leading Supreme Court case involving recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right and he successfully persuaded the court to recognize that interpretation of the amendment so we are so fortunate to have him here today. Hes been named by the journal online americas most influential lawyers. Hes worked as a deput a deputyy general for the state of california and the Senate Judiciary committee anjudiciaryw teaching at Georgetown Law School and we are thrilled to have him. Thank you so much for joining. [applause] i was looking left and should have looked right. The Second Amendment creates unusual bedfellows. To my left is the author of a superb new book. The Second Amendment a biography. Michael is the president of the Brennan Center for justice at Nyu Law School and nonpartisan heart of the institute focuses on preventive systems of democracy in the constitution and he directed speechwriting for president bill clinton and is the author of my fellow americans and three other Books Publishers weekly has called this book the best narrative of its subject, and i think without violating my duties to be in a moderate and a new journal moderator, i can say that this is a superb book what michael has done so compellingly as to give the narrative account of the amendment with the various drafts banned from the revolutionary state constitutions through the ratification process and the bill of rights in the reconstruction era and he also gives us a sense of the genesis and the meaning of the recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing as an individual right and the current effects and the surprising lesson to lower courts have interpreted these decisions to allow many of the gun control regulations. But he has a particular view and is going to disagree with of the many aspects of it and we are going to plunge right in. You make a strong claim which is the Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment is primarily an individual right that has to do with the right of individuals to defend themselves rather than a collective right which is designed to protect the state militias from being taken over by the standing armies. You see the Supreme Court is wrong as a historical matter into the justice is a bad originalist in his account of the original understanding of the Second Amendment is not persuasive. Tell us please in detail wh plet is that you believe that the justice was wrong. First of all, thank you for having us and for all that you do here at the Constitution Center. I think there are many things that can be said to argue for or to undergird decision but i do think that when Justice Scalia said after writing it that it was his indication of his vision of original as im that the idea that the only legitimate way to look at the constitutional provision is to ask what it meant the time of the framing i think that is an error. And i took that challenge and went back and looked at what went on around the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment and it was really striking. The founders coming as the data out of the revolutionary period in the turmoil with deeply, deeply be concerned about these militias as they are in that amendment described well regulated militias and they passionately care about them and they were bulwarks of liberty against the potentially tranquil kingdom or tyrannical Central Government. They were worried in both of those cases that there might be what is called a Standing Army which is like professional soldiers like the army that sailed away a few years before. Its important to understand and my real point is that there is a limit to how much we can decide here and now about what to do with the issue of gun safety and gun rights by just going back and looking at the founding era. Those militias are not like anything that we have now. They are not the same as the national guard. Any adult man was from 16 to 60 eventually every adult white man was a member of the militia and they were required to own a gun. They were required to own a weapon and bring it from home. And im asked was there an individual right or was it the militia was the Second Amendment about and i say those and neither. It was an individual right to fulfill the civic duty to serve and in a way our questions would make no sense just like in some way their answers make no sense to us. Now its important to note there are plenty. People had guns for self protection and they believed they had a right for self protection of the English Common law but when you look at the text you look at the notes James Madison took down the block of the Constitutional Convention and you look we have some scattered exceptions of the records of the ratification convention. When you look at the debate in the floor of the house of representatives gave marked up the Second Amendment. What they were focused on is how to protect these states urging militias. Its a different world from what we know now. Michael has many strong claim and i jumped the gun beginning this conversation without reading the text of the Second Amendment is going to read it and ask why dont you believe that hes wrong about this founding era history and what supports your view that the founders dont view the Second Amendment . The well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What are the parameters when they choose those words . What they meant to do is to secure the people to keep and bear arms into the first deals with the necessity of having the militia if you want to have a free state and give us the reason why they secure the right to keep and bear arms. But even if the framers were entirely wrong, but effectiveness of the militia even if the only thing we need to have a free state is a strong Standing Army and nuclear weapons, effective diplomacy, what have you. But we do have a state these days here in this country and we dont have the militia until 1791. All the same. The framers opinion about the militia and the reason for codifying the right to keep and bear arms doesnt change the substance of those that possessed it. We know that the 1689 english declaration of rights secured the right to arms. James madison referenced that in introducing the bill of rights and introducing the Second Amendment on the floor of the congress. It was well understood by the english courts wil courts well e American Revolution that people did in fact enjoy the right to have guns for the defense of themselves and their families. Many state constitutions either just before the ratification bill of rights were just after memorial lies to our right to keep and bear arms and not be tied down to any militia duty. And they would have been perfectly understood by the framers that the righ right didt depend upon the surface in the e militia. After all the words right of the people is found in the First Amendment and in the Fourth Amendment. People understood to have the rights in the ninth amendment and the people are not in the tenth amendment if shows that those are different concepts. So, why is it that in referencing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms we have a discussion of the militia . As michael eluted to come at the fact of the matter is the militia of service in the system depended upon the private individuals who kept their own arms being able to come to the duty with those arms and we have some knowledge as to how they were used. The fear at the time that the framers had is the future government would abolish the peoples ability to act out in the militia by targeting the position of the arms and therefore the position was secure with the purpose, partially purpose of picking shoe people could act as militia. But there is no way to read of clause and think that this would be the right that is shown here. I want to acknowledge there is a debate among the liberal and conservative scholars whether or not they intended to protect an individual right or not. And adam was supposed to be here with us today that was not able to. He argues in his book they did have the Second Amendment to be an individual right of what is accepted gun control control sot to dig in on this because there are others that agree that amendment was supposed to be in the individual rights and you know to states that seem to recognize the right and pennsylvania of all people and its revolutionary charter said that the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and that was the only constitution that didnt refer to the militia but the virginia amendment proposed by the ratifying convention that madison relied on heavily does also begin with a quote that doesnt refer to the militia that says the people have a right to keep and bear arms in the well regulated militia. And then to clinch the case there is an English Common law right people have against self defense that didnt recognize the militia so those seem to be the strongest or the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those are good questions come and again to go back to what the sportscaster would say it helps to go to the videotape. For starters if you look at what they said in the settings where they were officially and publicly or not so publicly discussing this they were focused on the militia and how to preserve the militia and make sure that this would not be diminished were crushed. I havent had the chance to acknowledge that he played a significant role as an advocate in this constitutional campaign that changed the way that we see the Second Amendment and the way the court sees it and if nothing else has a place in history for that of course. James madison had notes that reference the bill of rights but the reference to what he said did not refer to the english bill of rights. We actually dont know what he meant. The fact is they had a sense they have the right to protect their homes. They had no need for guns on the frontier but there were also gun laws. They said you couldnt have a loaded gun in the home. Its outside of the context of the militia issue there were guns into there were gun rights and governed by the common law is what the defenders think and they were putting in the constitution why did they put it in the constitution or the evidence suggests because i came into this not knowing that i thought i would find all of the evidence leans heavily on the idea they were looking for a check on the power pennsylvania was the one state i didnt have a militia. A pennsylvanithe pennsylvania ts split between philadelphia with its cosmopolitan elite and the rest of the states and they thought a lot about whether they were allowed to have a militia or not and part of the answer is the state constitutions that you can have weapons if you want them for your software to protect the state, but it wasnt part of a militia and i noted in the book that barack obama was not the first urban politician to complain about rural pennsylvania coming to guns. Its remarkable how some of the same cultural divides go back that far. The framers were aware of that provision, and they chose not to include it. What they chose to include his starting talking about the well regulated militia and James Madisons original proposal actually had a comprehensive objective provision saying that if yo you have religious scrupls about bearing arms, you didnt have to do your military service in person. Person. If the 12 members of the house of representativehouseof represn the debate about the Second Amendment all 12 discussed the militia into the conscientious objective provision whether that would weaken the militia. So it is striking when you look at whatever the general sentiment there was and what they thought they were putting in at the time. Although the debate is being well joined, michael makes the point of the preeminent concern of medicine and the majority of the state versus the Second Amendment was preserving militia against the Standing Army. Things change around the reconstruction. Reconstruction. After the civil war as the scholar differen the friend of e Constitution Center writes they argue that some supporters of the amendment now incorporate against the state intended to ensure they have the right to protect themselves with guns held important is that reconstruction history to your argument . It confirms the fact that the framers indeed solve the Second Amendment as the individual rights. I agree with the view of the 14th amendment and what it was intended to do and what it accomplished with respect to the rights of arms but this is the sort of change in the amendment with all due respect the bill of rights when it was first proposed and ratified was meant to be the antifederalists to people that have thrown the visitor to government was going to trample upon all of their basic rights. The federal response was always that we dont need a bill of rights because the federal parallax the structure and the power to deprive people of their individual freedoms, but as the ratification of the constitution proceeded with some difficulty and there was a great demand by people for some reassurance from a James Madison and the federalists agreed to ratify in the bill of rights those things that were not controversial and demanded in the convention and things would address some of the abuse of crown revolutions. The variou various levels of sts positions about the jury trials and things of that nature and yes the very noncontroversial rights to keep and bear arms for the one thing that madison was not going to do and the one thing the federalists prevailed and got the constitution ratified and controlled in the First Congress they were not going to alter the balance of the power between the federal government and the states. They were not going to unravel this new government that had just been created and madison is very explicit about that. And so, when people did come forth for these concerns and hes absolutely righ right thate were concerns by people. There were attempts to yield back some of the federal control over the militia back to the states those were all beaten back. Those that proposed in the senate to act for the common defense to the Second Amendment that was voted down. There was a constitutional amendment proposed by specifically would have had the militia power altering scheme that was rejected as well. And at the end of the day the constitution survived the bill of rights without having anything in its assignment of powers back and forth between the states and the federal government repealed. And so, we didnt just see a change in the power of the militia. We also didnt see any reveal the constitution still has today which would be a mistake from keeping the troops about the consent of the congress and of course it did meet with the Second Amendment has to be read as a sort of check on the powerr by the state our understanding of the civil war needs to change, but the civil war itself also prove to people there was a major flaw and the government in that until that point we had believed the right was necessary to control the federal government but no state would viol