tv History Bookshelf Adam Winkler Gunfight CSPAN February 24, 2021 11:14pm-11:59pm EST
next on history bookshelf. author autumn when their talks put his book gunfight. the battle over the right to bear arms in america. he examines gun laws in u.s. history getting back to the second amendment. this was recorded in 2011 at the texas book festival in austin. it's about 40 minutes. good afternoon everyone and welcome to the texas book festival. i'm wrecked dunham, the washington bureau chief of the houston chronicle, newspapers, and creator of the texas on the potomac, and by san antonio .com, hijacked the presidential because some governor is
running for president right now. in my extracurricular life i'm the president of the chandeliers an institute of which the ground jewel is the library. libraries are important because they 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 you buy benefit the libraries of the state of texas. i highly recommend that you buy gunfight, we're author will sign books after our program in the book signing tenth up books congress avenue. so i have been asked by the folks at c-span to ask you to turn off or silence your cellphones, we've had some problems earlier today and if you want to take out your concealed weapons permits now, it's probably a good time. also, concealed weapons, don't
take them out because if they take them out, they are not concealed anymore. we're here today to talk about gun fight. the battle over the right to bear arms in america. it's written by adam wing clear, he's a professor of law at ucla and a specialist in american constitutional law. his wide ranging scholarship has touched on a diverse range of topics, including the right to bear arms, corporate political speech rights, campaign finance law, affirmative action and judicial independence. he's a frequent contributor to the daily beast into the huffington post, his work has been cited in numerous supreme court decisions 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 co-editing the sixth of volume encyclopedia of the american constitution.
gunfight has received outstanding reviews, it's truly a groundbreaking work and here to tell us more about it is adam wen clear. i'll start with a basic question, which is what is the basic idea of the book? >> well, thank you for the wonderful introduction and thanks to the texas book festival for having more and for being here to. so, gunfight weaves together the dramatic wet, one review called cushion-like drama behind landmark supreme court case. the first supreme court case to clearly and unambiguously hold down the second amendment that protects and individual's right to own guns for personal protection. we've together that story with the 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 here. at the same time, we've also
always had gun control, all americans have always tried to balance gun rights with public safety and our efforts to balance those two things have shaped america in really fascinating and unexpected ways. and so, i look at the lessons of our efforts to draw that balance between g-n public safety, and also 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. >> so, the book itself centers on a supreme court case, probably everybody knows about it. district of columbia versus howler. can you talk a little bit about 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 of what's the meaning of the
second amendment was. so, despite the fact that we know in our culture that 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 love that to the lower courts and to the legislature's. this heller case was the first time, not only the supreme court, unambiguously held at the second amendment protection 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. and a law was struck down 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 could own a rifle or shotgun, but you could only -- it had to be locked or disassembled and you can only unlock it and disassembled it first naturally advise recreational purposes like hunting or target shooting. a d.c. court had held
specifically that if a burglar is breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble your gun for self-defense. and use it for self-defense because that wasn't a recreational purpose. so you know, you could take you're gonna maybe could bang somebody over the head with, it but you weren't actually to shoot someone with it if they were threatening your life. so the supreme stepped in and ruled on this case. one of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorate and provide judicial protection for the nra's view of the second amendment, the nra was opposed to the lawyers and the lawsuit from the get-go and did everything they could to stop the case from every going to the supreme court. >> why was that? that's counterintuitive in fascinating. why would the nra have not wanted this case to go all the way? >> well, the nra stated reasons whip to the lawyers involved in the case, that they were afraid of losing.
they didn't 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's a conservative court, they didn't want this court to reject that view. that wouldn't help the nra. the lawyers involved in the case where a group of three libertarian lawyers who had no real substantial connections with a gun rights movement. had not argued or litigated can cases before. they suspected that maybe the nra was fearful actually of winning. that the nra, they told me in interviews, the nra survives on crisis driven fund-raising that warns gun owners that to governments coming to get your guns. if the supreme court said the government can come to get your guns, what would that do to the nra's crisis driven fund-raising? whatever the reason, it's clear that the nra fought tooth and nail to keep this case from ever going to the supreme court. >> so you were talking earlier about people using guns for
personal protection, being one of their oldest most established rates. but, the supreme court had an reeled, as you said, over these past decades on the definitive meaning of the second amendment. so, if the supreme court never ruled on, it it's 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? >> well it's interesting. the second amendment has been subject to so much debate over recent years about whether it protects a 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 doing my research for gunfight was that 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's not associated with militia service, some of those state provisions go back to the original founding. many of them came in the early 1800s mid 1800s the states joined the union they added these provisions into their constitutions. in addition, what i found in research in the my book, everything but the second amendment, it's pretty clear that this 14th amendment to the constitution, which was one of the provisions adopted right after the civil war to guarantee that friedman their equal rights. the 14th amendment was clearly designed in part to protect the right of the freemen to have guns. right after the civil war, racist whites in the south we're trying to take away blacks right to their freeman's right to have guns for personal protection. and the framers of the 14th amendment said repeatedly and often that one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to protective friedman's right to bear arms.
>> so, again, you have all these historical discussions over american history on the right to bear arms. what kind of gun control through the founding fathers have or wet was their concept of where we went with a personal use and ownership of guns? >> well, the founding fathers very firmly believed in civilian ownership of firearms. they didn't believe in the standing army. they were afraid that the standing army would be used corruptly by the president or whoever was governing to run -- over the liberties of the people and thought that a guarantee of democratic liberty was in an armed populace. they believe in the citizens militia, the idea that one called out to serve, you could run home grab your gun and be prepared to fight in an instant. hence, the minute men of revolutionary fame. but yet, at the same time, they also had gun regulation. they borrowed large portions of
the population from owning guns, not only slaves of course but free blacks were barred from owning guns because they were thought to be a risk to public safety, they might thrown i put their life brethren and revolt against the masters. they also were willing to disarm law-abiding white people. mainly loyalists. people, we're not talking about traders, people who are fighting for the british, we're talking about what historians estimate were about 40% of the american population who were opposed to the revolution and thought it was abide idea taking on the most powerful country in the world, great britain and if you didn't swear north of loyalty to the revolution, you'd be forcibly disarmed. they also hadn't numerous other kinds of restrictions on gun owners that came in the form of militia laws. they declared that anyone, any male who's a female 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
obama's own health care individual mandate, only the framers didn't required by insurance, the required you to go out and buy a gun. >> so, let's take us through history from the time of the founding fathers. how did america and the american government balance this sense of the right to bear arms with what we would call gun control with curbs on how you could own weaponry? >> well, as i mentioned, the founding fathers had such curves, we think today of the south as a bastion of support for gun rights but some of america's he oldest gun control laws came from the south. bands, for instance, on concealed carry of firearms. where it became popular in the alien teen hundreds in the south and those laws weren't about disarming african americans. they were already disarmed in the south. but those laws were designed to discourage white man from getting into duels, honor duels
which were commonplace in the early 1800s and lawmakers saw it to stop that. and there's been 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 control laws in the nation. everyone out in the wilderness, untamed wilderness had guns. so much so that stagecoach are drivers would wide with someone at creative expense next to them with a shotgun in hand. our kids still say, i'm riding shotgun when they get in the front seat and that comes from the wild west era. but when you came in the town where the civilized friends -- you have to check your guns, the way you check your coat at a cold restaurant in winter. by, that i mean a cold restaurant in austin, but maybe up in north. >> so where did you check your weapons? you >> have to check them with their sheriff, or leave them at the staples with your horses. in fact, as i was researching the book, there was a great photograph in the book of dodge
city taken during the height of the wild west period, 18 seventies and 18 eighties. and it's a picture of dodge city and it looks exactly like you would expect dodge city to look in the height of the wild west period. why, dusty road, break-in clapboard buildings, little horse tied in front of the solution. the surprising thing is what lies in the middle of the street is a big billboard that says, the caring of firearms strictly prohibited. you came into a wild west town, you are not allowed to be a gunslinger with your guns on each shape and a rifle in your hand and a damage or hidden in your pants. >> i get the sense that it's like going into a restaurant now where you put your umbrella and iraq now we know horse thieves were hanged, did people steele h. others pistols or was it like an umbrella? you just pick up your own umbrella as you left town? >> i'm sure there was plenty of thievery in the wild west with
guns, but you would get them and you'd give them to the law enforcement officer. i didn't put the picture in there but i found a photograph from a bar in juneau, alaska, that has a handgun that was checked by none other than wider up when he came to visit juneau. and he had to leave town for reasons unknown in the middle of the night before the sheriff's office opened again and the sheriff still to this day, they still have the gun that he checked and was not able to collect. would you think are concepts of the wild west, the gunslingers are so wrong? what's the reason that we have this romanticized or fantasized version of it? >> we think of the wild west as with gunfights night and day and we remember incidents like the shoot out at the ok corral, a famous shootout with why it where three people died and four people were wounded. and, obviously that's been more realized in movies and film
ever since. but our image of the wild west is really quite wrong in fundamental ways, and i think it's wrong for the same reason why these places had gun control. if you were a small town on the outskirts of civilization, what did you want to become? he wanted to become a bigger town filled with civilized people. you want to attract businessmen and investors, and you wanted to attract good families that would come and create stability in your town. small towns today still want those things. that's why they enacted those laws with a business people would feel that they are safe and families would move there because they felt that the community was the safe community. what happened was after the frontier was closed those same places emphasized and glorified the violent incidents of the past to attract tourists and the businesses to serve them. that's why if you go to tombstone arizona today you can see a reenactment of the corral about five times a day. the reason why we know so much about the shootout where three
people died is because it was so extraordinary at the time. it wasn't commonplace that the you'd have a shoot out, in fact historians have gone back and notice that these towns in arizona,, georgetown 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 her maintain used to beat the president of the and are a. that's that national restaurant association, in texas when you say and are a it's the national rifle association. can you give a little historical background on the nra gun control? it's creation. i read that you are once a supporter of gun control. can you explain? that >> the nra today is known
for being a very rarely compromising opponent of gun control. it wasn't always that way. the organization was founded after the civil war by two union soldiers who were convinced that for union marksmanship is why the war landed for so long and wanted to provide training. in the 19 twenties and thirties the nra actually went out and drafted and endorsed restrictive laws requiring anybody who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to have a license, and only allowing those licenses to go to the suitable people for a reason for carrying the firearms. i did some research and found that in 1934 when congress passed its first -- which outlawed, it restricted access to -- call frederik was asked to testify about it and he was
asked specifically did the second amendment have any relevance to the national farms act? and his answer from the perspective of the day is quite remarkable. he said i have not given any study from that point of view, so the head of the nra didn't think if this far reaching gun law today was impacted by the second men meant. all that changed really in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when the and are a underwent a radical transformation, became much more radical and hard lined. >> let me ask. my first consciousness of gun control was 1968 with the assassination of robert f. kennedy and congress passing the most sweeping gun legislation, at least of that era. did that play any part? what were the factors that lead the and are a 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. and the law required various types of licensing for gun dealers, and the importation of different types of cheap firearms that were associated with 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 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, the and are a signature verification. he devised a plan, he said i want to retreat from political activity. move the nra's activity to colorado springs, where we can focus on adores men activities, hunting, recreational shootings. this angered a group of
dissidents in the nra organization who thought that guns weren't primarily about hunting but personal protection in an era of rising crime rates. this man -- led a dramatic, middle of the night coup of the organization, they went to the any organization meeting in 1977 and orchestrated a well thought out, carefully thought out plan to oust of the leadership of the nra plan and replace them with the hard-liners. when they took office they committed to political activity and meet the second amendment really the heart and soul of the second amendment. >> -- become involved? >> charleston of course became the great spokesman for the nra. there are the famous pictures, from my cold, dead hands. one of the things that i, found charleston was the first to say,
one of the things that i found in research on gun fights, among blacks in the civil war, the same attitude was prevalent. you will only take my gun from my cold, hard, hands. during the civil war for the very first time, southern blacks get their hands on blacks. some served in the union army. and the army cannot afford to pit soldier so it'll allows it soldiers to take their gun home with them and it will detect the back wages that the union army owns them. others -- the marketplace that is flooded with farms produce for the, war but once the war ended, not the same necessity. resist organizations like the kkk formed right after the civil war. specifically with the goal of gun control. getting the guns away from african americans. as long as the freemen had guns they would be able to fight
back. it took to gathering in big groups. going out a night. in the skies. in large numbers. the reason why they were in large numbers as because they had guns, they want to outnumber african americans. african americans at the time thought valiantly to keep their firearms. also from charleston's, view from my cold, dead hands, and partially for some, they found their guns were taken from their cold, heard, hands. >> -- in the 1960s, it makes 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 of one of the most remarkable incidents of gun control, which was the day in may of 1967 where a group of black panther is go to the california state capital in
california with loaded shotguns, rifles, and pistols, they walk right into the capital and walk right into the legislative chamber with the lawmakers all their. the black panthers more there to do violence. they were there as a political protest as california was considering the doctrine of new gun control laws. laws that were designed to -- with their guns openly displayed. and that law, a lot to disarm the panthers was supported not despite democrats, but by conservatives in california as well. in fact the governor the times strongly supported the law and said he did know why anyone would carry guns -- he would go on to become the president of united states, ronald reagan. reagan was a big interest of the gun control law. it was the laws that were this law and the laws like the gun control act that many people at
the time that was not designed to control guns but control around black that were riding in the worst race riots in newark. committing a lot of crime. there is an increase of crime rates especially in the 1960s. these laws that were designed to restrict access to black radicals in urban areas like the black panthers ended up sparking eight backlash among white rule conservatives who work convinced that the government was coming to get their guns next. >> going to take you forward from there to the debates over on gun control and gun rights that we have seen in the last five or ten years. why do you think that the advocates of the second amendment rights, right to bear, arms had become so dominant? there's just about zero chance of passing any state legislature or in congress anything that would smack of
gun control today. what's has changed politically over the past decade or two to put us in that situation? >> well i think the major push for gun control in the 1960s, especially the early 1970s was reflection in part of a great society philosophy that there are social problems, the government can solve those problems with new legislation and i think that over the course of the 19 seventies and the 19 eighties, more and more people lost faith with that idea. i think, you know some people think the nra and the gun lobby is very powerful because they have a lot of money. the reason why they have a lot of money is 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 today is 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 have leverage that
kind of constituency in american elections, you are going to be incredibly successful. so much so that i think that maybe the current administration in washington which is to enact more gun control laws, but they received an f rating from the brady center, the nation's leading gun control rules after two years, because they had only loose and gun control laws in those two years. so i think it's become one of those issues that, especially for democrats, they just don't want to touch that issue because they see it as a political loser. >> looking at the debate today then, you've taken us from the american revolution 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 how would you improve the public discourse on guns? >> well i think one of the problems that the gun debate suffers from is that it's really been dominated by extremists on both sides of the aisle. you know, we often think of 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 law, it's going to lead to ultimately down the slippery slope to a civilian disarmament. but i think the other side has been unreasonable over the years as well, control supporters have often sought to take all of the guns a way to do what washington d.c. did in 1976 and ban handguns and make other guns not useful for self-defense. and even after that became obvious, as an unrealistic agenda, with support often ineffective and sometimes frankly silly laws that really couldn't hope to reduce gun crime. and what i think is -- and i'm hopeful that the heller case that we mentioned earlier on in our discussion, might be an opening towards a new future in the gun debate. one where people's right to have the firearms for self-defense is protected and
secured by the supreme court in a way that other civil rights are protected. but at the same time, creating room for lawmakers to pass effective gun control laws that don't go too far. and i'm 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 who if anyone who's here has a question, please go to the microphone over here and will open up the floor. you got it. >> this is sort of a tactical question. justices kagan have pretty explicitly say that the we think that heller was wrongly decided, but they had the opportunity to overturn it, but i want you to think of it still in flux, it's the do you see it as something that will be enduring or that might in fact very quickly and unusually go by the wayside? >> you know, it's very hard to
say what's going to happen in the short term. i don't think it'll be overturned. you never know what happens with the judicial appointments. heller was a five four decision, there was a subsequent decision in 2010 that said the second amendment applied equally to the state local government, heller only dealt with the federal government and the district of columbia. in that case was also five to four. so any kind of judicial appointment might change that. i don't think that democrats really have a big -- a lot to gain by pushing for nominees that would be hostile to the right to bear arms. i think especially because the decisions were five to four, i think republicans in the senate and gun right supporters on the -- going to be very unlikely to support nominees that could change that vote from five to four. and i'm hopeful that in the long run, this is the kind of decision that is seen as something that helps american politics move forward and this
will be accepted by both sides of the issue. >> so, earlier today there was a panel on the narco drug wars and part of it discussing was talking about how one of the weapons being used originate here in the united states. so i was wondering if you had any insights as two ways that we can control that without infringing too much on second amendment rights and also methods that will be accessible to both parties? >> well, right now, i think there is probably not a lot of can control laws that you could realistically get enacted that will have any major effect on these mexican drug cartels and the word that's going on on the other side of our border. the administration has tried to adopt some new reporting requirements for congeal years in that area. but that effort has really been sidetracked because of this emerging scandal that has come about. the fast and furious candle
about botched gun sting 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 as that issue has gone on, i think it's a growing scandal, i think it's going to be a much bigger scandal and next six months than it was in the past six months. i don't think there's much that can be done in that realm. but, obviously, we've been trying to close the border, keeping trucks from coming in. we might need to spend some time thinking about what's getting out to and limiting the ability of people to export guns to mexico. >> next question. >> i have two questions, you countryside -- how easy is it to buy a gun in d.c. and two, can you contrast our gun restrictions to a place like britain where they just have a series of looting? >> yeah, and district of columbia, it's still very difficult to buy a firearm to.
the district of columbia after the heller case was decided didn't exactly throw up its arms and say, okay, will have liberal gun laws. they passed a series of very burdensome regulations that are currently have making their way towards the supreme court and we'll see what happens with those particular provisions. so it's difficult in the district of columbia to get your hands lawfully on a firearm. i will say this, washington d.c. banned handguns in 1976, ten years later, when i lived in washington d.c., it was known as the world murder capital of the united states. even banning guns didn't stop guns from finding their way into the wrong hands in washington d.c.. so, today you can probably get a gun easily in washington d.c. if you're willing to buy one illegally. legally, it's more difficult. but with regard to great britain, they got their -- they've had restrictive licensing and legislation requirements since the 1920s and as a result, they've got
very few firearms in great britain. there's plenty of underground firearms as well, but it's very difficult to own a firearm. the difference is, they got their hands on their gun problem, if you will, in the 1920s when there is only a couple hundred thousand guns there. there's 280 million guns in america. it's almost one per person and it is more than one per adult. i think the idea that we can get rid of all of those guns is a foolish idea, ignores the lessons in the history that we've had from prohibition. we tried that one, it was a terrible disaster. we tried to outlaw drugs with the controlled substances act in the war on drugs, i don't know how you feel about, it i feel it's been a terrible disaster knit just leads to criminalization -- and continue to hear engagement in the creation of a huge underground black market that's 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. one, can you talk a little bit about the disconnect. there are surveys that show 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 and former mayor daily in chicago, can you talk about that a little bit? >> sure. to disconnect between the nra and its members, you know, it is a long-standing and well recognized that if you pull gun owners and you pull nra members in particular, you'll find much higher support for things like improving background checks, closing what they call the terrorist loophole, also maybe, you hear a lot about the control loophole. i think that's not a good term. it's not accurate, there is no
loopholes for gun shows. weather is his gun shows have to operate under the same rules as everyone else that sells guns, where guns are sold. and it turns out that if you are not a federally licensed dealer regularly in the business of selling guns, you don't have to conduct a background check. so if you don't meet someone at a gun range, buy their gun, there's not really a gun show loophole but the majority of members would support closing that loophole and require 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 can control of the nra leadership doesn't see a lot to gain from supporting gun control, in fact when members of the quote unquote gun support lobby -- they have found themselves losing a lot of business from some of the most die hard gun
enthusiastic to buy a lot of guns. i am hopeful that if the right to bear arms isn't challenged and gun owners feel more convinced that the rights are -- the rights of other gun associations will be less worried about the slippery slope to total disarmament. yet a second question about big city mayors. the gun problem in america is predominantly a suicide problem. half the gun deaths a little over half our suicide deaths. of the homicides, half of those are gained or recidivist criminal related. they say we have a good -- game problem in america. we have a game problem in america. that's where the violence that affects urban cities, much more so than rural places, why they want gun control, they're
really trying to make their streets safer. >> mark twain famously said -- at 50 paces could pick up a unloaded musket to place in the back for his grandmother every time. what are the statistics for accidental shootings with gun holders. we have a much more likely to enter a friend or family member. someone breaking in. what's the story? >> for all the prominence that accidental shootings get in the literature and the media, it turns out to be a very small fraction of gun deaths every year. obviously we know that this does happen. we read stories about some child who finds a gun that his parents left on his bedroom night stand and shoots someone with it. accidental shouldn't happen.
i don't think given the number of shootings that happen pieces of primary or -- concern when there is suicide that is maybe worth more of our attention. for more people die every year in some polls then in gun accidents. now i hope that more people are swimming in their swimming pools on hot austin days like today, nonetheless, gun accidents are overemphasized 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. you have written that the aftermath of the heller case has not been exactly with the and are a and the then right supporters had expected. can you explain why that is? >> the supreme court in the heller case divide both the extremes in the gun debate. although gun rights activists
-- advocates were extolling the decision when decided, and gun control supporters were bemoaning the decision, it has not spell the end of gun control in america, and i think that opinion goes out of the way that while they bear the right for fire arm with self-defense, there is room for good public safety laws that regulate without banning guns. since how i was decided, there have been a little bit more than 300 federal court decisions on the constitutionality of any number of gun control laws since 2008. the courts have upheld almost all of the laws, only a tiny fraction of the laws have been invalidated. i think it's likely to continue to be the case that the courts will strike down outliers. really unusual and overly aggressive gun control laws like the one that washington d.c. had, the only city in the tired asian that --
we will continue to straighten the outliers, and as long as washington d.c. continues to bar the use of any firearms, as long as the support ineffective, will help view, in chicago the handgun ban after the heller case, -- it was the operation of any gun range in the city of chicago. come on. are you serious? so that law was struck down, as it should have been struck down. it's a silly and ineffective law that is designed to deny people the right to have a firearm. we will see those struck down, but we will not see the court striking down background checks, or access to machine, guns or see the supreme court say that felons or domestic abusers can have access to guns. i think that's just not likely to happen. >> i'm going to say thank you to adam win, clear this has
next on lectures in history. i am gee academy instructor, john, crevice teaches a class about the first and second amendments to the u.s. constitution using court cases to demonstrate how these rights have been interpreted. located in florida, i am gee academy is a college preparatory haulage board focused on student athletes. this is an hour. >> gentlemen, this afternoon we will be looking at the ten amendments to the constitution, which are called collectively the bill of rights. the third part of the constitution. and gentlemen, the bill of rights is unquestionably the shinin