>> Announcer: THIS IS "NEED TO KNOW" WITH JEFF GREENFIELD MARIA HINOJOSA, SCOTT SIMON AN THIS WEEK RAY SUAREZ >> ON THIS EDITION, THE DEEP ROOTS OF THE DEBATE OVER GUNS IN AMERICA.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FORGET IS THAT IN ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THE COLONIES THE MILITI LAW REQUIRED PEOPLE TO BE ARMED.
>> THERE WAS A SENSE THAT TH CITIZEN SOLDIER WOULD NEVER HARM NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS.
>> THERE WERE ALWAYS REGULATIONS ABOUT WHERE YOU COULD USE GUNS WHEN YOU COULD BRING THEM INTO CITIES AND TOWNS COULD YOU BRING THEM IN LOADED >> NEXT ON "NEED TO KNOW."
>> WELCOME TO "NEED TO KNOW.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
THE TOPIC OF GUN CONTROL HAS BEEN FRONT AND CENTER EVER SINCE LAST DECEMBER'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MASS SHOOTING IN NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT.
AND THAT DISCUSSION INEVITABLY LEADS TO ANOTHER ONE ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO TH CONSTITUTION, A MERE 27 WORD FROM 1791 THAT CONTINUE TO INSPIRE FIERCE DEBATE MORE THA TWO CENTURIES LATER.
>> A CRITICAL PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS -- THE SECON AMENDMENT.
>> DECADE AGENDA TO ATTACK THE SECOND AMENDMENT >> WHILE PRESERVING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS >> THEY ALL SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AS DO I >> THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PROTECTED.
>> THERE IS A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS >> THE TERM SECOND AMENDMENT I TOSSED AROUND ALL THE TIME BUT WHAT DO YOU REALLY KNO ABOUT IT WHO WAS BEHIND IT?
WHAT WERE ITS AUTHORS TRYING T ACHIEVE?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HOW DOES IT APPLY TODAY WHEN MUSKETS HAV BEEN REPLACED BY SEMI-AUTOMATICS?
JOINING US A DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF EXPERTS SAUL CORNELL IS A HISTOR PROFESSOR AT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY.
HE'S THE AUTHOR OF A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, TH FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE ORIGINS OF GUN CONTROL CRAIG WHITNEY WAS A FOREIG CORRESPONDENT AND EDITOR AT "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AND IS THE AUTHOR OF "IVING WITH GUNS, LIBERAL'S CASE FOR THE SECON AMENDMENT.
JOYCE LEE MALCOM IS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR A GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY LA SCHOOL SHE'S THE AUTHOR OF SEVERA BOOKS INCLUDING "TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGIN OF A ANGLO-AMERICAN RIGHT."
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR JOINING US LET'S SET THE SCENE AT THE TIM THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS BEING DRAFTED, OF WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ONE OF THE TEN IN THAT BILL OF RIGHTS.
PROFESSOR MALCOM, FROM BRITISH RULE TO AMERICAN SELF-RULE, WHAT WAS THE ATTITUDE TOWARD GUNS WHAT DID THE LAW SAY ABOUT WHO COULD OWN THEM AND UNDER WHA CIRCUMSTANCES?
>> I THINK THERE WAS JUST GENERAL FEELING THAT THIS IS ONE OF INTRINSIC RIGHTS AN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT THEY DESERVED AS THE ENGLIS COLONISTS.
AND THE PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE WEAPONS TO PROTEC THEMSELVES THEY ALSO HAD A DUTY, THE -- THOSE OF CERTAIN AGES, TO SERV IN THE MILITIA SOMETIMES THEY WERE ALSO CALLE UPON TO HELP TO KEEP THE PEACE IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES BUT THEY WERE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO BE ARMED AND HAVE THEI OWN ARMS TO DO THAT.
>> APART FROM WHAT THE LAW SAID, CRAIG WHITNEY, HAVE COMMON AMERICANS ALWAYS BEE WELL-ARMED >> WELL, THEY CERTAINLY WERE I THE COLONIAL DAYS.
AND THEY NEEDED TO BE.
ONCE THE NATIVE AMERICAN REALIZED -- THESE BRITISH ME WEREN'T JUST COMING TO B FRIENDLY OR TEACH THEM THING BUT TO SQUAT ON THEIR LAND AND SEIZE IT THE VIOLENCE BETWEE NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES AND COLONISTS WAS PRETTY HORRENDOUS.
SO THEY DEFINITELY NEEDED ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AND FOR HUNTING.
BUT IT WAS ALWAYS CONNECTED WITH A CIVIC DUTY TO SERVE IN THE COMMON DEFENSE IF CALLED UPON.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FORGET IS THAT IN ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THE COLONIES THE MILITI LAW REQUIRED PEOPLE TO BE ARMED.
THEY'RE FINDING A WAY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES 'CAUSE THE MILITIA I FUNCTIONING LIKE THE ROTAR CLUB, THE BOY SCOUTS, TH POLICE IT'S AN ORG -- IT'S ONE OF THE CENTRAL ORGANIZATIONS OF COLONIAL SOCIETY >> PROFESSOR MALCOLM, WE WEREN'T SURE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A PERMANENT STANDING ARMY, WER WE >> THERE WAS A LOT OF WORR ABOUT A STANDING ARMY BEING THREAT SO IT WAS THE MILITIA THAT THE FELT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH 'CAUSE THESE WERE THEI NEIGHBORS.
THERE WAS A SENSE THAT THE CITIZEN SOLDIER WOULD NEVER HARM NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS.
AND THEY TRIED VERY HARD T AVOID A STANDING ARMY ALTHOUGH EVENTUALLY AN ARMY IS SORT O BUILT INTO THE CONSTITUTION.
>> WELL, WE HAD LAWS THA ENSHRINE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, LAWS THAT SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTED THE MAINTENANCE OF A MILITIA BUT IN THE SECOND AMENDMEN ITSELF WHICH, LIKE ALL THE ARTICLES, IS A RESULT OF A COMPROMISE AND DEBATE, WE GE THOSE FAMOUS TWO CLAUSES THA GIVE US ANOTHER 225 YEARS OF FAMILY FEUDS IN ORDER TO CLEAR UP NOTHING LET ME READ THE 27 WORDS "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
WELL, THE SECOND HALF, "TH RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," IS PRETT STRAIGHTFORWARD.
YET AT THE SAME TIME,EARLY AMERICAN STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED LAWS ALL THE TIME THA SPOKE ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH GUNS COULD BE HELD >> INFRINGED DOESN'T MEA INFRINGED ON THERE WERE ALWAYS REGULATION ABOUT WHERE YOU COULD USE GUNS WHEN YOU COULD BRING THEM INTO CITIES AND TOWNS COULD YOU BRING THEM IN LOADED AND THIS WENT ON ALSO LATER IN THE WILD WEST.
>> WE HAVE THIS IDEA THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IF A RIGHT'S INALIENABLE THAT SOMEHOW IT' NOT REGULATABLE.
THE RIGHT WAS ALWAYS REGULATED BUT TO GET BACK TO YOUR POIN ABOUT THE SECOND HALF IT -- IT DOES TALK ABOUT BEARING ARMS AND I THINK THE MOST TYPICAL MEANING OF THAT IN THE 18t CENTURY IS TO THE USE OF ARMS IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT YOU DON'T BEAR ARMS WHEN YOU G HUNTING.
THAT'S NOT THE TYPICAL USAGE THERE ARE A COUPLE ODD, UNUSUA EXAMPLES OF THAT BUT THE TYPICAL USAGE IS YOU TALK ABOUT THE PART OF THE POPULATION CAPABLE OF BEARIN ARMS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MEN BETWEEN A CERTAIN AGE WHO ARE GONN PARTICIPATE IN A MILITIA >> THE SUPREME COURT WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT >> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT O COURSE - >> WITH THAT ANALYSIS IT DID >> DID DISAGREE WITH THAT.
BUT I DON'T ANYONE'S EVE ACCUSED THEM OF BEING GOOD HISTORIANS >> BUT LET'S GET TO THE TOUG PART ABOUT THAT FIRST HALF THERE'S THAT INESCAPABLE IF THEN PROPOSITION OF PUTTING THA FIRST CLAUSE IN THERE.
WHAT IS IT MEANT TO MEAN >> TWO THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DRAFTING HISTORY AND SEE THE DIFFERENT CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE, THE SENATE THAT HA SORTA THE FINAL SAY ABOUT WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS GONNA BE HAD -- AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED THAT WOULD'VE PUT THE RIGHT OF TH PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR THEIR COMMON DEFENSE, TO ADD "FOR THEIR COMMON DEFENSE" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED AND THAT WAS REJECTED.
SO IT SEEMED TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN -- IN REJECTING THA AND LEAVING THAT OUT THAT THEY HAD IN MIND THAT THEY DID NO WANT THAT IN THERE >> BUT THEY PUT IN THE MILITIA CLAUSE >> YEAH, I THINK PART OF THE REASON FOR THE MILITIA BEING LISTED AS THE NECESSARY SECURITY OF A FREE STATE WAS WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, THE FEAR OF A STANDING ARMY, THAT THEY WER SORT OF GIVING THE IMPERMADER TO THE MILITIA.
THIS IS THE NECESSARY SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
>> REMEMBER THAT THE MILITIA WERE RUN BY THE STATES OR PARTLY BY THE STATES.
AND THE REASON WHY THE AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED WAS AS TO REASSURE PEOPLE WHO WERE WORRIED ABOU THE STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMEN THAT WAS BEING ESTABLISHED B THIS NEW CONSTITUTION, DESPITE ALL THE CHECKS AND BALANCES.
AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSEL NEEDED MORE CHECKS AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF TYRANNY THAT TH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BECOM TOO STRONG, ESPECIALLY IF IT HAD A FEDERAL STANDING ARMY.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT EXACTL THE POINT THAT CRAIG HAS MADE, THAT THERE'S A GREAT CONCERN THAT THESE STATE MILITIAS WILL BE RENDERED IMPOTENT, THEN I YOU PUT THE WORDS COMMON DEFENSE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIO THEY'RE GONNA WORRY ABOUT, WELL, NOW OUR MILITIAS ARE BOUND T COMMON DEFENSE BUT WHAT ABOUT PUTTING DOW SLAVE INSURRECTIONS?
WHAT ABOUT PUTTING DOWN SHAYS' REBELLION?
SO THE MOST HISTORICALLY I THINK ACCURATE EXPLANATION OF WHY THEY TAKE OUT COMMON DEFENSE IS NOT WHAT JOYCE IS SUGGESTING AT ALL.
IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT CRAIG I SUGGESTING WHICH IS, THESE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WHO WANTED TO PROTECT THE MILITIA AND WANTED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS REALLY WANTED TO WRES CONTROL OF THE MILITIA BACK TO THE STATES >> I REALLY THINK THAT THI NOTION THAT SOMEHOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MEANT TO BE A POWER OF THE STATES OR RIGHT OF TH STATES, STATES HAVE POWERS THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS THOSE FIRST AMENDMENTS, FIRS EIGHT ANYWAY, TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT OF THE STATES.
ALL OF THE - >> BUT NOBODY'S ARGUED ABOUT THE STATES' RIGHTS -- CAN I NOT JUST SAY -- >> YEAH, BUT YOU REALLY ARE.
ALL OF -- AMONG ALL OF THE LISTS QUITE A NUMBER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT STATES PUT FORWARD WHEN THEY RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION, THERE WASN'T ONE THAT SUGGESTED THAT ANY RIGHTS ABOUT THE MILITIA BE GIVEN BAC TO THE STATES, NOT ONE AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN'T GIVE THE STATES BACK ANY RIGHTS.
IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND HA -- BEAR ARMS.
>> RIGHT >> WELL, LET'S LOOK -- TAKE LOOK AT THE 19th CENTURY THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF AMERICAN HISTORICAL MEMORY COMES FROM WHETHER IT'S THE CIVIL WAR, OR THE TAMING OF THE WEST O FIGHTING AGAINST INDIANS I DON'T KNOW IF "IGH NOON" AND "BONANZA" IS ANYTHING MORE THA GOOD TELEVISION AND GOOD MOVIES.
IS IT GOOD HISTORY WAS AMERICA AS ARMED AND A TRIGGER-HAPPY A PLACE AS I COMES TO US IN MODERN POPULA CULTURE?
>> MAYBE NOT AS TRIGGER HAPPY.
THE SHOOTOUT AT THE O.K.
CORRA STARTED BECAUSE IKE CLANTON HA BEEN FINED $27.50 FOR VIOLATIN A TOWN ORDINANCE AGAINST CARRYING A WEAPON IN PUBLIC.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT PRODUCE A FEUD AND THE SHOOTOUT HAPPENED AT O.K.
CORRAL.
BUT IT JUST SHOWS YOU THAT THE ALWAYS HAD -- TRIED TO KEE VIOLENCE UNDER CONTROL, EVEN THOUGH A LOTTA PEOPLE WERE CARRYING GUNS FOR NECESSAR REASONS.
>> BUT IF WE GO BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING, I THINK WHAT' INTERESTING AND WHAT WE LOSE SIGHT OF IS THAT INTERPERSONAL HOMICIDE RATES IN THE YEAR O THE SECOND AMENDMENT ARE VER LOW AMONG WHITE AMERICANS.
THEY'RE ASTRONOMICALLY HIGH WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NATIVE AMERICAN DEATHS.
BUT AS WE MOVE INTO THE PERIOD OF REVOLUTION, JACKSONIA DEMOCRACY, AS AMERICAN INDUSTR STARTS TO MAKE RELIABLE, CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, HANDGUN AND FEARSOME WEAPONS LIKE BOWI KNIVES, THEN YOU START TO SE RISING LEVELS OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE AND YOU SEE THE FIRST MODERN STYLE GUN CONTROL LAWS AND THIS IS WHERE YOU START TO SEE THE FIRST STATE CASES ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND OF COURSE THERE ARE TW INTERPRETATIONS THAT EMERGE.
THERE'S JOYCE'S INTERPRETATION THAT IT'S A FUNDAMENTA INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER INTERPRETATION THAT I THINK IS CLOSE TO WHAT CRAIG AND I AR SAYING, THAT IT'S A RIGHT THAT CITIZENS OR INDIVIDUALS HAVE BUT IT IS SHAPED BY THE MILITI PURPOSE.
AND WE'VE BEEN ARGUING OVER THAT JACKSONIAN DEBATE REALLY FOR THE REST OF AMERICAN HISTORY >> I DON'T HAVE A GUN IN THI FIGHT.
BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT THA PEOPLE COULD NOT CARRY GUN WHEREVER THEY WANTED THERE WERE REGULATIONS EVERYWHERE ABOUT WHERE, WHEN - >> BUT THEY'D HAVE A RIGHT THAT WAS THE - >> THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
>> THAT WOULD BE HIS - >> BUT NOT TO TAKE THEM WHEREVER THEY WANT.
>> BY THE CIVIL WAR WHEN THE UNION ARMY GOES INTO THE FIELD WITH MODERN RIFLES, WHAT A FIREARM CAN DO IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT A FIREARM COULD DO LESS THAN A CENTURY EARLIER WHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS BEING FRAMED WHAT COMES OUT OF THAT DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER THINKING?
OR ARE WE STILL LARGELY LIVING IN A 1791 WORLD?
>> WELL, I THINK WHAT' INTERESTING IS YOU HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT TRADITIONS GOING INT THE CIVIL WAR.
THE ABOLITIONISTS ARE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE PACIFISTS AND TH REALLY AGGRESSIVE, JOHN BROW WING OF THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT WHO REALLY BELIEVES I ARMED, INSURRECTIONARY USE O VIOLENCE AND THEY HAVE A VISION OF TH SECOND AMENDMENT THAT'S VERY AGGRESSIVELY INDIVIDUALISTIC AND REVOLUTIONARY.
IN THE SLAVE SOUTH YOU ALSO HAVE A VERY INDIVIDUALISTIC VISION OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WHAT WE SOMETIMES LOSE IN TH MODERN DEBATE IS THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE WHO WANTED TO REGULATE FIREARMS AND WERE SOR OF THE MAJORITY.
THE MORE TYPICAL THINKING IN THIS TIME PERIOD IS THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO REGULATE FIREARMS WE NEED TO REGULATE THE MILITIA.
AND THAT'S THE TRADITION GOING INTO THE CIVIL WAR >> WHEN SHERMAN WRITES, I THIN IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR ABOUT THE MEN OF LEISURE O THE SOUTH, WHO COULD SHOOT FRO A GALLOPING HORSE, WHO WER CRACK SHOTS, AND THAT CULTURE, THE SOUTHEASTERN AMERICA CULTURE, HELPED SETTLE THE WEST.
IS THERE A CULTURAL DIMENSION TO THIS >> I THINK IT WAS THE SENSE OF WHAT A GENTLEMAN WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, THE, YOU KNOW, HUNTIN WAS IT WAS A LEISURE ACTIVITY AS WELL AS BEING A USEFUL ONE BUT ON THE ISSUE OF CULTURE LITTLE BIT LATER AND EVEN IN THE SOUTH AT THAT TIME YOU HAV GROUPS WHO, PEOPLE ARE, YOUR MAJORITY ARE WORRIED ABOUT HAVING FIREARMS.
AND SO THEY WANT TO HAVE SOM MEANS OF MAKING SURE THAT GROUPS THAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT EITHER BLACKS IN THE SOUTH O IMMIGRANTS IN THE NORTH CAN BE CONSTRAINED AND NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE WEAPONS AND SO I THINK THAT'S ALSO BEHIND THIS ISSUE.
IT ISN'T JUST THE TECHNOLOGY IT'S WHO IT IS THAT'S GONNA BE YOU KNOW, HOLDING THOSE WEAPONS.
>> THERE WAS CONSENT, IF I REA THE HISTORY RIGHT, WIDESPREA CONSENT TO THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING LIKE A THOMPSO MACHINE GUN -- >> OH, YES, YES.
>> IS SO LETHAL IN THE WRONG HANDS THAT IT IS, THAT IT'S OKAY TO BAN CERTAIN WEAPONS FOR PERSONAL USE >> THAT WAS 1934, THE FEDERA GOVERNMENT PASSED LEGISLATION TO BAN WEAPONS THAT THE AL CAPONE WERE USING, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THIS TERRIBLE GANG VIOLENCE.
AND SO THEY BANNED, YOU KNOW MACHINE GUNS, AND SAWED-OF SHOTGUNS AND SILENCERS, WEAPON THAT SEEMED TO BE THE PREFERRE WEAPONS FOR CRIMINALS.
AND I THINK THAT WAS, YOU KNOW THIS SENSE THAT NOBODY NEEDS A MACHINE GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE >> YOU DON'T HEAR GROUPS LIK THE NRA COMPLAINING VERY MUC ANYWAY ABOUT THAT IMPOSITION O FULLY AUTOMATIC TOMMY GUNS AND YOU'VE NOT SEEN A TOMMY GU OR A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON TURN UP IN ANY ONE OF THE SCHOOL GU MASSACRES THAT WE HAD IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE LAS 20 YEARS >> BUT IF WE'RE BASING PART OF OUR ENDLESS FAMILY FIGHT OVE GUNS ON WHETHER OR NOT IT' POSSIBLE OR PERMISSIBLE TO REGULATE, RESTRAIN, CONSTRAIN, THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU CAN SAY, YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE IT >> OH, YEAH.
THEY, THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT.
I MEAN, PEOPLE WEREN'T SUPPOSE TO HAVE A CANNON IN THEIR FRON I MEAN, THERE WERE ALWAYS THINGS THAT WERE SORT OF APPROPRIAT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE - >> WHAT MADE COMMON SENSE.
>> YEAH, YEAH -- >> EXACTLY >> AH, BUT CANNONS WERE BEYOND THE MEANS OF MOST PEOPLE AND A HANDGUN IS WITHIN TH MEANS OF MOST PEOPLE NOW AND THAT'S A VERY BI DIFFERENCE >> I THINK THAT IT, A PISTOL O A HANDGUN IS APPROPRIATE FOR SELF-DEFENSE IT'S -- IT IS REALLY AN IDEA WEAPON FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
IT ENABLES THE WEAK PERSON T PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST STRONGER PERSON, OLDER PERSO AGAINST A YOUNGER PERSON IT REALLY IS AN EQUALIZER.
>> JUST AS SAMUEL COLT SAID.
>> IT IS >> THE EQUAL - >> YEAH, EXACTLY SO THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM REAL MILITARY WEAPON LIKE MACHINE GUN OR A BAZOOKA OR ROCKET LAUNCHER, SOMETHING LIK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN COMMON USE FOR SELF-DEFENSE AN IS VERY PRACTICAL FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> POST-WORLD WAR II ERA W START TO KICK UP THE TEMPO A THE DEBATES BECOME MORE INTENS AND ALSO THE LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP AROUND THESE QUESTIONS BECOMES MORE FREQUENT.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE COMMO UNDERSTANDING OF THE RIGHT T HAVE A WEAPON SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR, CRAIG >> WELL, IT REALLY CAME TO A HEAD IN THE 1960s, WHICH WE TEND TO FORGET TODAY WAS A DECADE O INTENSE SOCIAL TURBULENCE, RACIAL STRIFE, RIOTS AND ASSASSINATIONS WHICH FINALLY LED IN 1968 AFTER MARTIN LUTHER KING AND SENATOR ROBERT KENNEDY WER ASSASSINATED TO THE FIRST REAL FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION.
IT ESTABLISHED CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ENTITLED T BUY GUNS, PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS, DRUG ADDICTIONS AND S ON IT SET UP A REQUIREMENT THAT I YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS O SELLING GUNS, YOU HAVE TO BE FEDERALLY REGISTERED AND THAT WAS LATER IMPROVED AN TIGHTENED.
AND A FEDERAL DATABASE WAS CREATED IN THE '90s AFTER TH BRADY LAW WAS PASSED AND THERE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THA FOLLOWED BY A DECADE OR MORE THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AGAINS PRESIDENT REAGAN SO SOCIAL UNREST HAS CONSEQUENCES PEOPLE FEAR GUN VIOLENCE MORE.
THEN THERE'S A BACKLASH AS PEOPLE REALIZE THAT KEEPING TH BLACK PANTHERS FROM HAVING GUN OR WEARING THEM OPENLY MEANS THAT YOU AND I CAN'T DO IT EITHER AND ATTEMPTS ARE MADE TO, YO KNOW, LOOSEN THE REGULATIONS >> EVENTUALLY THERE WERE TES CASES FOR THESE LAWS, WEREN' THERE, TO SEE IF THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
>> WELL, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S INTERESTING BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, RAY, THE USE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN SOME OF THESE DEBATES, LIKE IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE AMERICAN RIFLEMA FROM THE 1950s YOU HARDLY SEE THE PHRASE SECOND AMENDMENT.
SO THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS THI KIND OF RALLYING POINT, AS THIS -- AS THIS MANTRA, AS THI SLOGAN, AS THIS ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE.
>> RIGHT, IT'S CALLED A RIGHT.
>> WELL, BUT IT WAS -- IT WAS -- IT JUST WASN'T PART OF THE DISCOURSE.
YOU DON'T SEE THE SECOND AMENDMENT USED IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE LIKE YOU DO TODA 30, 40 YEARS AGO >> I THINK IT'S JUST WHEN THER WERE ALL THESE THREATS TO BA WEAPONS THAT THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, AN EMPHASIS ON IT AS A RIGHT.
I THINK IT -- THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS ASSUMED IT -- THAT IT WAS THEI INDIVIDUAL RIGHT THERE ARE 44 STATES THAT HAV THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARM IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS AND SOME OF THOSE WERE RECENTL CHANGED TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTEL EXPLICIT THAT THEY'R INDIVIDUAL >> SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU -- >> SO -- >> YOU'RE SAYING PART OF THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE OF RIGHTS AROUND THIS COMES FROM A PERCEIVE THREAT TO THAT RIGHT >> YEAH, YES AND I THINK IT -- AND THE -- AND WITH THESE 1960s LAWS THERE IS THAT THREAT.
>> THERE WAS A COMMISSION HEADED BY MILTON EISENHOWER THA RECOMMENDED BASICALLY OUTLAWIN AND SEIZING ALL 29 MILLION A THE TIME HANDGUNS THAT WERE IN PRIVATE HANDS IN THE UNITE STATES THE RECOMMENDATION WENT TO THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION WHICH HAD JUST TAKEN OVER AND, YOU KNOW, IT NEVER WENT ANYWHERE BUT I THINK THAT KIND OF THING IS WHAT THE NRA IS HARKING BAC TO WHEN IT SAYS ANY KIND OF GU CONTROL IS INEVITABLY GONNA EN UP WITH THE SEIZURE OF THE WEAPONS THAT WE HAVE >> WELL, THERE ARE LOTS OF GUN CONTROL -- THERE'RE LOTS OF LA CONTROLLING USE OF GUNS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IDEA O BANNING 'EM OR AND SEIZING GUN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT THING >> HAS THE MOMENTUM, CRAIG GENERALLY SPEAKING OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES BEEN TOWARD LESS-RESTRICTED, MORE-PERMISSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN OWNING, KEEPING AN CARRYING A FIREARM >> I'D SAY ABSOLUTELY WITH SOM EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN RECENT MONTHS BECAUSE OF REACTIONS TO NEWTOWN AND AURORA.
ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, NEW YORK CONNECTICUT, COLORADO EVEN AND MARYLAND HAVE ALL PASSED - >> HAVE SORT OF REACTED, RIGHT >> STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS >> SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAD >> WELL, I THINK THE BIG PROBLEM WE HAVE IS WE HAVE REGIONA SUBCULTURES AROUND GUNS.
BUT WE HAVE ALMOST AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL MARKET FOR FIREARMS SO FIREARMS MOVE VERY EASILY FROM GEORGIA INTO NEW YORK ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE VER DIFFERENT GUN CULTURES IN THOS TWO PLACES AND THAT'S WHY UNFORTUNATELY T HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL KIND O IMPACT ON GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION THERE HAS TO BE SOME THINGS DONE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL MANY THINGS CAN BE DONE AT THE STATE LEVEL FOR INSTANCE, LIKE SAFE STORAGE LAWS ARE SOMETHIN YOU WOULD DO AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR SAF STORAGE IN THE BRONX OR IN CONNECTICUT MIGHT BE VER DIFFERENT IN ALASKA.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW THAT GUNS MOVE FROM OHIO T PLACES LIKE NEW YORK VERY, VER QUICKLY.
>> YEAH, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE LAWS, THAT IT, YOU KNOW, AFFECTS LAW- ABIDING PEOPLE BU IS -- IT'S PEOPLE WHO HAVE, YO KNOW, INTENT TO DO SOME HARM ARE QUITE EASILY ABLE TO GET FIREARMS THEY NEVER WILL GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK >> I DO THINK THAT ARGUMENT THAT CRIMINALS WON'T UNDERG BACKGROUND CHECKS THEREFOR BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE USELESS IS SPECIOUS >> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE USELESS.
I JUST THINK WE HAVE REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFEC THE PEOPLE WHO PLAN TO D SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, BAD >> IT CAN.
IT CAN AFFECT SOME OF THEM AND IF IT CAN, IT SHOULD BUT I THINK IT'S REALISTIC T REALIZE THAT GUN CONTROL ALONE IS NEVER GONNA SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM >> NO, NO.
>> NOT ALL BY ITSELF >> LET'S CLOSE WITH A LOOK A THE HELLER DECISION.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD ONE OF THE MOST-RESTRICTIVE GU OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION LAWS IN THE COUNTRY.
IT WAS CHALLENGED BY A RESIDEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AND THE SUPREME COUR ESTABLISHED A PRECEDENT THAT SAYS, "YES, FINALLY THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT."
MILITIA CLAUSE, WHATEVER, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE DEBATE OVER WHAT TO DO NOW THAT WE'RE ENGAGED IN RIGHT NOW AND IN TH UNITED STATES?
>> FIRST OF ALL THE MAJORITY I HELLER POINTED OUT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP GUNS THAT ARE IN COMMON USE FO SELF-DEFENSE AND OTHER LAWFU PURPOSES SO THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BAN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES THAT ARE IN COMMON USE DOESN'T SQUARE WITH THAT STANDARD I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT SCALI KINDA CARVED OUT AN AREA WHERE HE SAID THAT THESE -- THAT CERTAIN KINDS OF LAWS COUL REMAIN AND THAT WOULD INCLUD PROHIBITION AGAINST FELONS HAVING WEAPONS, OR THE MENTALL ILL OR WEAPONS BEING CARRIED INTO SENSITIVE PLACES.
WHAT I FIND KIND OF SHOCKING I THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN HELLER IS BEING SO WIDELY IGNORED BY STATES SUCH AS CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK THEY JUST SORT OF PASSING AL THIS AND IT REALLY DOESN'T PASS MUSTER WITH THOSE PARTICULAR FINDINGS AND THOSE PARTICULA OPINIONS I MEAN, THESE ARE -- >> WELL -- >> WELL, THAT'S JOYCE'S OPINION.
>> WILDLY OUT.
NO, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT IT.
>> NO, NO.
BUT PROFESSOR CORNELL, THERE I THINK THERE'S A FUNDAMENTA QUESTION HERE WHICH IS WHETHER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF HELLER MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT FROM HERE ON OUT TO WRITE A LAW RESTRICTING ACCESS TO WEAPON THAT WILL PASS CONSTITUTIONA MUSTER >> BUT IT ALREADY HAS COMMON USE -- >> BUT IT ALREADY HAS, RAY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS A ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND A BAN ON HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
AND ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE JUDGES INTERPRETING HELLER SAI IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT'S LAW PASSE CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.
HE SAID IT MEETS A COMPELLIN STATE INTEREST AND MOST OF THE SCHOLARS HAV WRITTEN ON THIS INCLUDING PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT HAVE ALL SAID THA THERE'S VERY LITTLE PROBLEM WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN WITH HELLER >> AND ALSO DON'T FORGET THE BAN IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON HANDGUNS WAS REALLY A BAN.
YOU COULD NOT HAVE ONE >> OH, YEAH.
>> A HANDGUN IN THE DISTRICT O COLUMBIA >> YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT, RIGHT >> THE BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPON THAT NEW YORK STATE FOR INSTANCE PASSED AFTER NEWTOWN LED - LEAVES THE GUNS THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS, SO-CALLED ASSAULT WEAPONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE I THEIR HANDS.
IT'LL CERTAINLY BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.
AND -- >> OH, YEAH.
>> WE'LL SEE WHAT THE SUPREM COURT SAYS, EVENTUALLY >> WELL, THANK YOU ALL FOR A LIVELY AND WIDE-RANGIN CONVERSATION JOYCE MALCOM, CRAIG WHITNEY, SAUL CORNELL >> THANK YOU >> THANK YOU ♪♪ >>> THIS IS "NEED TO KNOW.
♪♪ >>> THIS WEEK ONLINE, TAKE PAR IN OUR WEEKLY POLL THE TOPIC, CONGRESSIONAL ACTIO ON GUNS.
VISIT PBS.ORG/NEEDTOKNOW >> THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "NEED TO KNOW.
JEFF GREENFIELD WILL BE WITH YOU THEN I'M RAY SUAREZ THANKS FOR WATCHING.
♪♪ -- Captions by VITAC - www.vitac.co ♪♪
