David is the opinion editor of the Washington Times and the former president of the National Rifle association. He also served as a chairman of the American Conservative Union and his new book which he coauthored with thomas mason is called shall not be abridged shall not be infringed. The new assaults on your Second Amendment. Obviously Second Amendment can easily shaded to policy debate. I would like to keep this conversation on constitutional grounds to do that lets you start with a test of the amendment itself. Taking out my trusty pocket constitution. It reads a well regulated militia being necessary for the free state. It shall not be infringed. As we already said you borrow part of the text from the title of your book can you talk a little bit about that choice. The wording is important and shall not be infringed is important because the Second Amendment does not grant the people of the United States the right to keep and bear arms. It is a recognition of the fact that the right of selfdefense which is what it really is preexist. The American Republic preexist. Many of the states including pennsylvania have in their constitutions prior to the writing of the american constitution the adoption of the bill of rights already had an equivalent kind of language and it goes back the right of selfdefense goes back to the Old Testament and for the back. That is an important question because these rates we talked about the founders that they believed in rights that were passed on to them from natural law and god in the like. They were not rates that were being granted by the new government. The there were the right to keep and bear arms. All of these things were rates they believed in were inherent in the human condition which they have to prevent the government from infringing in the case to bear arms. Thats why i think that part of the amendment is important. There is so much about state constitutionalism. It relies on some of the state constitutional provisions. To argue that the individual rights is deeply embedded in the american constitution. Relatively recently. He wouldve thought that that one could not exist. It wasnt until relatively recently that people began looking at the history and a large sense the theory of what the constitution means how great a bearing on that because that drove people back to the history. And as they studied the history they realized that the common wisdom that the Second Amendment didnt mean much. And as a scholarship developed i know one point they wanted a much more restricted view of the amendment. He got back to them and said unfortunately the founders did it. As we look at this we realize it is what the Supreme Court eventually said it was in the heller case. Can you talk about that. At the original founding but also after the civil war and reconstruction can you talk a little bit about why this value was deemed so fundamental. And so worthy of protection. It started in the american dna. This is a nation that was founded because the citizens are on. It came about because the british decided to confiscate the empty mission. They can essentially disarm the American People. Thats what resulted in the around the world. So that in the settling of the west all the things that went on and viewed americans. This is an important part not just an important part of our history far more than the right of selfdefense. He came to symbolize a certain view of the responsibility of the people to defend themselves. The nra which i headed for two years was founded after the civil war interestingly because it was founded by several Union Officers in new york. There was a view. Union soldiers were very good with firearms. The union was pretty and later drafting the first generation immigrants. And many of these people have no firearms tradition in many cases the Union Soldier didnt get a chance to fire a gun until it was in battle. And thats not a good place to learn. It was the equal of three Union Soldiers. But the union had five soldiers. Two of the first president s of the nra it was been lost. And they wanted to make sure that new americans as well as those who have been here for generations appreciated and understood firearms. One of the significant features it was professors that were affiliated as being more progressive. Im actually a student on both of them. One key feature is rooting the fundamental nature also in the experience of the newly freed slaves. If you go back to the history of gun control. Its come across in several ways. The first wave of gun control legislation came about right after the civil war. Another thing to give them guns. In the south in particular there were all of these laws that were established to keep them out of the hands of the newly freed black americans. Part of the Civil Rights Movement from then on was involved in firearms. Thats why Condoleezza Rice was asked about the Second Amendment and as far as im concerned she remember hiding under the bed as a child that was the first wave of gun control legislation then we have the banning of automatic weapons because of that visibility with the machine guns. Resulted in another way. During that whole time frame things changed in the attitudes changed. Because the Second Amendment was not only not mentioned but uncontroversial. Up to the 60s. They were all members of the nra. The other ones. There is no disagreement to speak of. But now becomes known as a cultural award all the sudden you have a situation in which in 1968 the Johnson Administration put through congress the best laws ever adopted most people supported gun control over good words. A year or so later after johnson left office. One of the motivators it was beginning to become a liberal left. These people were all upset about it. They thought maybe this would make them happy. This didnt work. A year later Richard Nixons attorney general appointed a commission which have recommended at the Justice Department within ten years been. Anybody who was around at that time and most of the audience is younger than that if we were ask it by 2015 the Supreme Court would have certified the meaning of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. There was some form of a conceal and carry law. They got into the whole thing. With the very powerful congress. You can train all of the people in safety that you want. You can provide them with Technical Information and second matter because no ones can have a gun. It is unless you step up and defend the Second Amendment is equity mean nothing to anybody. It kind of change things in the 1970s. Those of us that are strong Second Amendment believers were encouraged by a couple of recent polls during the campaign. They are least likely to favor additional restrictions. There has been a great deal of real changes in the way people view the rights and the Second Amendment. One of the things thats interesting because i have not thought of this i believe more peoples attention has been directed to the bill of rights than any other group or people in the United States. People have turned to it. They get a greater appreciation of the importance of the constitution because particularly gun owners base their belief on the bill of rights. And thats an important think not just for the education but the constitution. The text of the amendment as you know one of the criticisms of the gun rights community. It was really rigid in the clause. This to quickly read and put that and put it on the table. Here is a preparatory closet to the security of a free state. The gun right is an tethered. Its very dangerous to take what a word means in 2015 and assume that the word means the same thing in the 1780s. That question was researched by scholars and others. It couldve just said the people. The logic of that argument against the prevailing position. It was done not in any way guarantee to anybody has a right to a firearm for any purpose. They only guarantee that the states can have a militia. That made no logical sense historically. And why do they want to have a militia. They changed it. In the historic context. It was put them on the table. One of the odd things about the Second Amendment there werent any decisions for the first 200 years. Who the challenges were and what the courts said there. Dick halter was a security guard. And lived in a dangerous neighborhood. And sought the right to have a gun in his home to protect himself. That ultimately went to the nancy Supreme Court. It does in fact guarantee and protects the right of the american citizen in his home. That was the first time that they said that. The district of a columbia try to get around that in various ways and failed. That only applied to federal enclaves. The second case which was in some ways even more important was the mcdonald case and you know and im sure some of you that have got to log school you read an appellate case you dont really know what its about. Later when they were part of the book writer. They struck down the difference. Getting back to the depression. You would think that this is this huge deal. And you find out its about three orthodox butchers of new york who said the government can pick out their own chicken. It gives you a whole different perspective on what is this really about. In the legal sense it was about whether it should be incorporated as other parts of the bill of rights had what it was about was otis mcdonald. He was a black chicagoan at the age of 14 they have migrated north. There was a lot of that. They came back and got married in my decent house got the ged eventually became have of the janitorial union locally his kids were grown. In his neighborhood which have been a pretty decent neighborhood when he the house in the 1950s became the home of gangbangers and drug dealers. So he applied to the city of chicago for the right to keep a gun. They turned him down. He was also a student of history. He went for his right and the right of others in chicago but also because he knew where those laws came from. So he said when he came to that courtroom. He thought it was the senior war. And of course the court found and incorporated the big dispute of what courts to take and it really isnt well at the tip here. The right became life. The First Amendment in 1920. There werent many decisions up to that point. You know that the bill of rights guaranteed the right to free speech but what did that mean. As they noted every fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions. So in the case of free speech we know the extreme examples just because you have the right to free speech does that mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. There were 100 cases that had to work their way through the courts. The Second Amendment today is where the First Amendment was in the 1920s. The court set okay its a fundamental right. And there are cases now winding their way through the courts that will lay up with the parameters of what is allowed in terms of reasonable restrictions and that fundamental right. One of the problems that we face legally is that in the heller case there was a complete ban so the court didnt have to specifically had that. They have no scrutiny. In the case of fundamental rights which they declared that it was. They were supposed to be through the scrutiny. Since they didnt have to answer that question. Some of the lower courts said they never said we have to do that. The two kinds of cases i can mention. And basically the band there. Others that its unconstitutional. What is now known as a may issue states on the concealed carry permit. They look on the rights to carry the fire. Or what they call constitutional carry states. There are 11 of those. And that means if youre not a felon there is a list of people that are not allowed. Most states if you apply for a permit to carry a firearm the sheriff if they dont want to grant it they have to give a reason. The burden is on the government to tell you you cant exercise the right. A burden is on you to demonstrate to the government. And they dont have to prove anything. They can just deny. The legal argument there is what is the government and their right to force the citizen. That was guaranteed by the constitution. The courts have come down differently on the sinks. This is gonna take a long time. For the courts for them to straighten out. Unfortunately the governor backed up on a little bit of that. They added on said that the price of a handgun would go to additional 500. He backed up because they force them to back off. What kind of attacks can you put under the right. To really just put some meat on the bones. To comparing the two different analysis. Lets take the assault weapon for example. Versus what the other one would look like. Its even more than that. If youve read the decision there is a paragraph and it which i have to believe lets just tell them what they can and cant do. You cannot ban a firearm that is commonly used for legal purposes. It is a semi automatic not an automatic weapon. It is owned by about 5 million americans. The most used firearms now. Used for hunting or predator hunting. Its too small. And too too small a caliber for deer. It cant can be used for that. Its also used widely for selfdefense purposes in the home. The court was saying you cant do that. If i said i wanted to deny you and you challenged this if they look at that with strict scrutiny does not accomplish a legitimate purchase. And why does this work. In virginia the legislature stood up and stopped it. The attorney general decided by executive order the regulation that virginia would no longer recognize the concealed carry permits a people that are issued in 25 other states which was affected about six my people that traveled through. In the Washington Post reporter ask them at the press conference mister attorney general can you name one crime that wouldve been prevented have this been in effect. He said no i cant but thats not the point. If youre looking at that from a strict scrutiny point of view. You say oh but that is the point. And thats where you get into it. The fact is that going back to the socalled assault weapons. They can be used selectively and be fired fully automatically. These are not assault weapons. They are civilian semi automatic versions that look like the fully automatic. One of the reasons is my daughter for example spent ten years in the army she did to two orders of iraq hours of iraq and one of afghanistan. With the life in the military. And now as a civilian in her home she is a semi automatic version of that. She also knows what to shoot historically the bestselling the most used civilian guns is something that are adopted by people in the military. The answer is no. Each year more people are beaten to death than are killed by all shotguns and rifles. His bidding this for all these people accomplish a real purpose it just might say no. In many ways were really looking at. In one of the reasons with most of the proposed restrictions. If you are a federal judge with the potty of law and youre required to use strict scrutiny the fact that it would not accomplish anything as a way not to find it constitutional. To test the bounds of the Second Amendment. Lets just pick through a couple of other traditional policy approaches. In your view what constraints do they make on the governments ability to ban certain procedures purchasers. There is an entire list of people who are prohibited the biggest gun seller in the United States is walmart. They sell most Everything Else also. Most people in the first firearm they buy at a walmart or some place like that. The underground a background check. There is a list of ten or 12 or 13 categories of people who are not allowed to purchase firearms. They are denied the firearms rights for life. With the mentally potentially dangerous is not allowed. To purchase a firearm. They had tried to expand this in many ways my only problem in fact i met with a group called the prosecutors against gun violence and the bloomberg people came to this meeting and said that i think there were circumstances under which you could permanently or temporarily banned someone from owning a gun. And you said i said yes we do. We would like to ban guns who anyone is picked up for dwi. No but it would be a good idea. The promise we have always been against treating peoples as members of groups and going to the the prohibited people mental grounds during the Clinton Administration there was an attempt to put a lifetime ban on any military person that ever had counseling. From a practical standpoint would mean youre not going to go to counseling. But from a broader perspective with that it was a private some the other constitutional right. They went to congress and got that restricted. In most cases we had supported some things with the two things we like to require is that it would be individually centered and that there would be due process. For example some years ago when colorado adopted a concealed carry law in most states the decision is made by the sheriff of the county. On the grounds that he is a better understanding of whats going on than others. We supported what became known as a naked man rule. It was named because the hypothetical was the sheriff gets an application who has never been adjudicated mentally at all is sitting on the court house law. Maybe i shouldnt give this guy a gun. And then it requires that he has a right to go before a board. And demonstrate that he does have the right. That seemed to us that it was a reasonable thing. They are exhibiting some potential for danger you might want to take a look at it. To simply say