kids and cathy davidson on the futures initiative at city university of new york and author of the new education. nobel prize winning economist talks about solving global poverty. and the change. he is in conversation with jeffrey sachs at columbia university. the brennan center for justice at nyu school of law examines the second amendment and the atlantic's frank 4 looks at the influence of tech companies like amazon, facebook and google on news, politics and free will. on columbus day we have all the finalists for the national book award presented in november. 3 days of c-span2's booktv. television for serious readers. visit booktv.org.
>> thank you so much, welcome to the national constitution center, such a pleasure to see you here. i am jeffrey rosen, president of this institution, the national constitution center. those who have been here before know that it is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis meaning we bring together the best scholars and commentators from all sides of the constitutional debate the transects the nation and let you the people make up your mind and we are doing this on a range of media platforms and want you to check out our superb podcasts which are getting 100,000 downloads bringing top liberal and conservative scholars to the baby issues of the weekend please come back over the next
few weeks of constitution center and follow our programs online as we have an extraordinary range of debates and programs. coming up on june 26th, we have a new program added cosponsored with friends in intelligence square about the constitutionality of campaign finance reform. the prominent lawyers will come to discuss their new book about marriage equality. lawrence strive will discuss his new book and on june 16th we have a phenomenal program about the meaning of the fourth amendment in the digital age featuring two lawyers who argue before the supreme court the cell phone case about that and you will hear both of them before the court decides it's case. hard to think of a constitutional issue more hotly contested and important in
american life than questions involving the historical meaning and contemporary significance of the second amendment and i cannot imagine two people better qualified to give you the best arguments on all sides of this important debate so you can make up your own mind. after we talked for a bit i ask you to write down any questions and the team will collect them and we will interact with our guests. i am delighted to introduce alan gura cofounder and partner, you argued that the case before the supreme court, leading supreme court case involving recognizing the second amendment as an individual right and successfully persuaded the court to recognize that interpretation of the second amendment. we are fortunate to have him here today. he was named among america's most influential lawyers, he worked as deputy attorney general to the state of california and senate judiciary
committee and is teaching at georgetown law school and we are thrilled to have him. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> looking left when should have looked right. second amendment creates unusual bedfellows. to my left is the author of the superb new book "the second amendment: a biography," michael waldman is president of the brennan center for justice at nyu law school, nonpartisan policy institute focusing on improving democracy and the constitution. he directed speech writing by bill clinton, arthur of my fellow americans and three other books, publishers weekly called this book the best narrative of its subject, without violating my duties to be a moderate neutral moderator, i can say this is a superb book. what michael has done compellingly is give a narratively accessible account
of the history of the second amendment, what various drafts of it meant from the revolutionary era state constitution and the bill of rights, the reconstruction era and gives a sense of the genesis and meaning of the recent supreme court decisions recognizing the second amendment and their current effects and surprising lesson lower courts have interpreted these decisions to allow many gun control regulations rather than strike him down but he has a particular view of the second amendment, disagree with many aspects of it and we will plunge right in, you make the strong claim that the supreme court holds 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 designed to protect state era militias from being taken over by standing armies. you say this record is wrong to
-- justice scalia is a bad originalist in his account of the original understanding of the second amendment is not persuasive. tell us please the detail why you believe justice scalia was wrong. >> thank you for having us and all you do at the constitution center. there are many things that can be said to argue for or against the heller decision but i think when justice scalia said -- it was a vindication of his vision of original is in, the idea that the only legitimate way to look at a constitutional provision was to ask what it meant at the time of the framing, that is in error and i took the challenge, went back and looked at what went on at the time of the drafting of the second amendment and it was striking. the founders coming as they did
out of the revolutionary period, huge turmoil, deeply concerned about these militias, wrote -- they passionately cared about them, believe they were bulwarks of liberty against the potentially tyrannical king or potentially tyrannical central government. they were worried in both those cases there might be what would be called a standing army, professional soldiers like the army that just sailed away a few years before. important to understand my real point is there is a real limit to how much we can decide what to do about the issue of gun safety and gun rights by just going back. those militias are not like any have now. not the same as the national
guard. from 16-60 every adult white man was a member of the militia. they were required to own a gun, required to own a military weapon. i am asked, was this a right, an individual right? what was the second amendment about? individual right or the militia? both and neither. and individual right to fulfill the civic duties, and in a way, our question would make no sense to the framers just like their answer makes no sense to us. it is important to note there were plenty of guns, people had guns for self protection, they believe they have a right to self protection under english common law. when you look at the notes james madison took at the constitutional convention, some
scattered records, when you look at debate in the floor of the house of representatives, what they were focused on was how to protect these militias which were made of soldiers bringing their guns from home. it is different world than we know now but it is striking when you see what they were up to. >> a strong claim, i jumped the gun by getting into this conversation without reading the text of the second amendment. i will read it and ask why you believe michael was wrong? and what supports your view the founders would view it as an individual right? here's the text with 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. what did the framers mean with those words? >> what the framers meant was secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms. the necessity of having
militia, gives us the reason as to why they secured the right to keep and bear arms but even if the framers were wrong, the effectiveness of the militia, even if all we need for a free state is a strong standing army, nuclear weapons, effective diplomacy, we have a free state these days, don't have the militia system we want, all the same -- the framers obtain about militias and the reason for codifying the right to keep and bear arms doesn't change the substance of the right, we know 1689 secured right to arms. james madison referenced in introducing the second amendment on the floor of congress. it was well understood by english courts before the american revolution that people
did in fact enjoy a right to have guns, many state constitutions either just before the bill of rights or after memorialize the right to keep and bear arms, cannot in any sense be tied down to militia duty and it would be perfectly understood by the framers that the right didn't depend on service in the militia. it is found in the first amendment, the fourth amendment, people understood to have rights under the ninth amendment, the 10th amendment shows inference concepts. why is it in referencing the right of people to keep and bear arms we have this discussion of the militia? as michael alluded to, fact of the matter is the militia system depended upon individuals kept their own arms being able to come to militia with those arms and have some
knowledge how they were used. the fear the framers had with the future tyrannical government would abolish the people's ability to act as militia and we can the militia system by targeting possession of arms and therefore position of arms was secured with purpose of making sure people can act as militia but there was no way to read that clause and think that this must be limiting the operative right. >> i want to acknowledge there is a serious debate among liberal and conservative scholars with founders intended to protect an individual right or not. adam winkler was supposed to be with us today and is not able to, argues in his book the
framers did intend the second amendment to be an individual right or they would have accepted gun-control. i wanted again on this. there are other liberal scholars who agree, you note two states that seem to recognize an individual right. pennsylvania of all people in its revolutionary charter said the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the state, the only revolutionary constitution -- the virginia amendment proposed by the virginia convention that madison relied on heavily does also begin with because that says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, a well-regulated militia and so on. to clinch the case, there is this english common law right for self-defense they didn't recognize militias, the strongest argument for the individual right interpretation of the second amendment. >> those are good questions and
to go back to what the sports page would tell you, for starters, if you look at what framers say, they were officially and not so publicly discussing this they were focused on the militia and how to preserve the militia and make sure the bulwark against tyranny would not be diminished or crushed. i should start by acknowledging he played a very significant role as an advocate a significant constitutional campaign that changed the way we see the second amendment and the way the court sees it. a place in history for that in this book. james madison and notes referencing the bill of rights but the record of what he said did not refer to the english bill of rights, actually don't know what he meant in those
notes but no basis for thinking he said it but the fact is they had a sense they had the right to protect their homes, to shoot berman, a lot of need for guns on the frontier but also gun laws, ubiquitous gun laws. the city of boston said you couldn't have a loaded gun in a home. there were laws about the storage of gunpowder. outside the militia issue there were guns and gun rights governed by common-law but what did framers think they were putting in the constitution and why did they put it in the constitution? all the evidence suggests, surprisingly so to me because i came into this not knowing what i thought i would find and lean heavily on the idea they were looking on a check on federal power. pennsylvania was the one state that did not have a militia.
pennsylvania then and now was split between philadelphia with its cosmopolitan elite of quakers and the rest of the state, the backwoods man, they thought about whether they wanted a militia or not and part of the answer was the state constitution said you can have weapons for yourself or to protect the state but not part of a militia. i noted in the book that barack obama was not the first urban politician to complain about rural and civilians clinging to guns and religion. remarkable how the same cultural divides go back that far. the framers were aware of that provision and chose not to include it. what they chose to include in the second amendment, starting with the well-regulated militia and james madison ups the original proposal had a conscientious objector provision saying if you had
religious scruples about bearing arms you didn't have to do your military service, 12 members of the house of representatives who spoke in a debate about the second amendment, all 12 discussed the militia and a conscientious objector provision, whether that would weaken the militia. it is striking when you look at the miasma of general sentiment, whatever they were putting at the time. >> the debate -- michael makes the deck of the preeminent concern, preserving militias, is changed around reconstruction. a friend of the constitution center writes the poster boy of arms with carolina friedman argue some supporters of the 14th amendment against the state intended to ensure black
citizens the right - how important is that reconstruction issue? >> the reconstruction history confirms the fact that the framers indeed saw the second amendment as securing individual rights which i agree with the view of the 14th amendment and what that accomplished. but this was not a change in the view of the second amendment. the bill of rights as first proposed and ratified was meant to be to the anti-federalist, people who were afraid the federal government in washington which eventually would be found it was going to trample upon all their basic rights. the federal response was always we don't need a bill of rights because better power lacks structure, the power to apprise people of individual freedoms but the ratification of the
constitution proceeded with some difficulty, great demand by people for some reassurance, james madison, federalist, agreed to ratify in the bill of rights those things that were not controversial, things people demanded in-state conventions and would address abuses of the crown and the revolution so we saw a ratified security for the right of religious conscience, security of the right to speech, criminal justice provisions about jury trials and things of that nature and noncontroversial right to keep and bear arms but the one thing madison was not going to do that federalists prevailed and the constitution ratified in the first congress, they were not going to alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states, they were not going to unravel this new government that had been created and madison was explicit about that. so when people did come forward
with these concerns and mister walden is right, there were concerns by people, attempts to yield back some federal control back to the states. those were beaten back, for the common defense to the second amendment, that was voted down, there was a constitutional amendment proposed that would have had this militia power altering scheme, that was rejected as well. at the end of the day the constitution survived the bill of rights without having anything in its assignment of power back and forth between states and federal government repealed. so we didn't just see any change in congress's power with the militia. we also didn't see any repeal of provisions the constitution still has which forbids the state from keeping troops without the consent of
congress. if the second amendment has to be read as a check on federal power by the state. our understanding of the civil war needs to change but the civil war proved there was a major flaw in our form of government. always up until that point we believed the bill of rights was necessary to control the federal government but no state would violate their right, closest to the people and some kind of right violation at the state level people can take care of that democratically. in the wake of the civil war and the horrors and reconstruction, at best naïve and often tragic, there's great demand to ratify something in the constitution which became the 14th amendment that would bind the states, follow national civil rights standards and nothing was more urgently desired and spoken about over and over again than ratification debates over the 14th amendment, the ideas we absolutely had to secure the right of americans including
the newly minted friedman who had become citizens, we needed to secure their rights to have arms because they were the subject of all kinds of out rich, terroristic violence, that was absolutely continuation of the understanding of the second amendment, simply applied now in reform. >> one more bead on this history so the audience understands after the civil war the bill of rights only restricted the federal government, the 14th amendment requires the states as well as the federal government to respect most of the bill of rights and the second amendment. allen was arguing with scholars then in light of that civil war experience the second amendment becomes more an individual right, the desire to allow african americans to protect themselves from rotting mobs from attacking their rights and
not getting protection. did reconstruction change things? even if you were not persuaded it was an individual right at the time of the framing to become one after reconstruction? how things involved? >> there's a stronger argument in reconstruction in the revolutionary era. it is important to put it in the context, what happened after they ratified the second amendment with their belief in these militias? two months later george washington signed a law requiring all a tight way to men by a gun. this was cited in the affordable care act litigation before the supreme court as the other times i could think of the government ordered people to buy something. >> it was a mandate. >> george washington signed it under a different provision of the constitution. nothing much happens. the militias started to fade
away. people didn't buy their guns. got thomas jefferson upset. he tried to get a registry going, who had what guns but they didn't serve in the militia and the militias proved inadequate in the war of 1812. james madison believed the militias would be strong enough to defend the country until the british invaded, they marched past the maryland militia and burn down his house was the militias were not an effective military force anymore. the country grew west, more violent, more individualistic and there were a lot of guns so you start to have laws passed dealing with concealed carry and things like that so we start to have a debate with it the right to bear arms was an individual right and naturally you had the sense the majority
view among the courts constitutional protections were not so much for individuals as the militia. you had growing up over a century and a half gun rights and gun ownership and alongside them, strong gun laws. they were not seen as in conflict. along comes the civil war. one of the things i hope to do writing this book, there are surprises for liberals, conservatives, people who see themselves as gun rights adherence and after the civil war there were hundreds of thousands of former slaves who returned home to the south, many in the union army. 7 states passed laws taking away guns just from african-americans. this is why they passed the 14th amendment. it is more jumbled than alan gura suggests as to the
rationale of including this. some people seemed concerned about blacks having their guns taken away, focusing on militias, making sure they could get guns was one of the purposes. it was not one of the purposes sold to the public when they put it up for ratification. when the military took over the south as reconstruction moved along, gun laws, strong gun laws placed at the same time as the 14th amendment. one of the things that did happen was the supreme court rules pretty quickly the bill of rights did not apply to the states. both as relates to the second amendment, specifically the decryption case, one of the egregious parts of american history, those rights were withdrawn pretty quickly.
really didn't turn, i am familiar with the professor's writing, he believes it is located in part of the 14th amendment, privilege and immunities clause. he argued that was the basis for gun rights in front of the supreme court and the supreme court chose not to take that but it wound up being part of this evolution where you have more an individual sense of gun rights and gun laws in hand throughout american history which is where it was for a century and a half. the supreme court four times before the heller case considered the second amendment and did not find it recognized in individual rights of gun ownership. most recently and most expensively in 1939, when they upheld the first federal gun law. it turns out people's views of this have more to do with their view of central government and
individual rights than most of anything else. in the 30s there was no hesitation in polling. >> the historical debate has been well joined. now we are moving from dispute about the original understanding in the framing and during reconstruction. ..
the bill of rights could piece by piece fly, take a long time to get these issues and throughout most of this did not have -- and did not see a lot of federal gun laws. and so of course as is true with much of the constitution we didn't see second amendment issues, a little later on, that is not to say it wasn't there
and the constitution was dormant or in active during that time. the reason the heller case came out was because in 2001, the fifth circuit court of appeals in the us versus emerson had for the first time taken a serious look at the second amendment, studied its history, looked to original sources including very airtight opinion the second amendment does support an individual right and this caused conflict with various others to not examine the second amendment and nearly rubberstamped too much analysis. a pair of very bright attorneys and friends of mine were working at the institute for justice, the law firm in washington dc realized given
this circuit split and large amount of scholarship on the second amendment, the decisive weight of it being on the individual rights side meant sooner or later there would be a supreme court case dealing with, wouldn't it be better if there was a case that was structured in a responsible manner, not one of these accidental second amendment cases that arrive in the context of drug dealers and others who are not in the best position to represent this important right. so clark and steve put together a case at the cato institute, and council in that case, sort of went through the thinking between what became the heller case so i designed a board but
this was definitely not something we invented was that the nra invented. the book i does a very good job spelling out collective rights point of view but it misses some sources. i was surprised not to see any reference in the book to st. george tucker in his treatise on william blackstone, spelled out the second amendment as going back to blackstone's construction, the right of self-preservation. william raleigh, a very influential scholar in the 1820s. his treatise found the second amendment to be an individual right. as a member of the pennsylvania assembly he ratified the second amendment, not mentioned in the book, barely mentioned st.
joseph's story, in the 1830s, the individual rights model and even the american bar association, not exactly right wing militia type organization. in 1965 awarded a prize to a fellow who wrote an essay in the second amendment. and other people who may have institutional trust. >> alan said plenty of history. >> i will let it stand. >> you can debate that history as accurately debated. but the core of your objection is justice scalia didn't engage. he doesn't seek to explain the original intent, this is
focused on closely parsed text taking us on a claustrophobic and unpersuasive reading of the text that strolls through the historical background, to take out of the context. and -- >> the other 60 to take the words keep and bear arms out of order and out of context. text out of context doesn't work. he consulted dictionaries, really hard to prove that is the score. as we just heard, i would suggest, not heard the fact somebody in 1965 articulated a
powerful constitutional argument for the consensus of 200 years before but i will try that sometime. justice scalia relies on the history, leaves out, and serious consideration that to bear arms is the term used in inevitably for the military and militia service. he articulated a doctrine. once you take away -- he articulates a doctrine that says there is an individual right like all individual rights listing the limitations. core of the second amendment, protection of hearth and home used by them.
it leads to further consideration what the extent of that or what those limits are. the approach is untethered by the history, the only thing i can say is check the footnotes, there is a lot of use of stray and obscure sources but i try to deal with them in the footnotes of the book. the way the constitution has always been made is by people arguing about the constitution. what happened was the nra, national rifle association on this issue in 1977, previously started after the civil war,
concerned -- training and marksmanship, spoke for hunters for sportsmen. in 1977, the revolt at cincinnati at the annual meeting among members. much more ideological, installed as leadership and refashioned itself, the constitution perceived to change the way the supreme court found the second amendment. a lot of scholarship, some of it is not so good. it worked to change positions of the government, changed its position in the second amendment. as i said, by the time over the past decade it was time to go to court, the apple, fell like an apple from the tree.
it was not that surprising or controversial. a lot of liberal scholars, what can you expect. they were upset because this was the same living constitutionalism they felt they had been fighting, the highest of insults. and a classic campaign to change what was seen as something different. >> two distinguished judges, to be historically unrooted, the most significant question is the possibility of regulation.
this included some gun ownership. military type arms, assault weapons, rocket launches, the regulations might be okay. the gun laws are brought and courts rebuff the first two years, 200 cases gun laws -- lower courts could interact restrictions that are consistent. >> those numbers, a lot of cases are criminal cases. in the case of robbing the post office, the second amendment, probably not surprising. the second amendment will
disappoint both sides. on both sides of the speech or religion issue. fact of the matter is every right has a certain contour. you understand what that protects and some activities are outside the scope of that. at a minimum, activities that would not be understood to be in the people's right to keep and bear arms historically are those who might fall outside the scope and at other times, actually have to see how the concept applies to a modern scenario and there is room for something else, the fundamental interests of having arms for traditional purposes or whatever the regulatory interest might be. in terms of what types of guns you can have these cases come up frequently.
heller involved the handgun. .. and it found a test which is quite useful and it goes as follows . it the arms of the kind that would be in common use for traditional lawful purposes, people can expect to have them for true purposes. if they are not, then they would not be protected, and so we don't have rocket propelled grenade season for deer. you know, so things like that are, obviously, going to be outside there might be some closer questions and even o to the extent that some guns might be appropriate for some context but not others well then you -- those regulations might be appropriate or not as well, for example, there's nothing unusual about taking a rifle to go hunting with.
there's no unusual for home scefs or gun range but that same rifle walking around central park, people might have a few questions about what's going on on so there are time, place, manner restrictions even for arms that are presented so again we need to see how the cases shake out. but that's the way our constitution works disputes arise people litigate them, and we learn on a case by case basis organically as doctrine develops what rights we enjoy and what we with don't. >> michael one question to ask to be respected liberal that the second amendment protects and a and lawrence will be here soon, more broadly why should they be upset regardless of whether called an individual rate you say in practice most of the regulations challenge heller have been upheld so why is this guy really palling?
>> i don't think it guy is falling. i have my -- i think that understood rightly common sense individual gun rights and common sense gun laws and regulations go if hand-in-hand and that's what we've seen since the heller an mcdonald cases it has been a striking pats earn across the states and in federal courts where judges have said yes there's an individual right. but society too has a right to protect itself and we're going to exam these laws so see if there's a reasonable purpose for them and a strong governmental interest and upholding them with some keepingses which may yet come back from more litigation to the supreme court. some of the gun right supporters have this passionately they've called it likened it to massive resistance which was southern states refusal to follow -- follow gun versus board of education. i think these courts have gotten
it right generally speaking when you can both have reasonable gun rights and gun safety. the question you asked about those liberal scholars and their voices were quite important and honestly both because they were very respected also because it was sort of manned by itsing to to have liberal scholars speak up in this way is it was reported at the time in the the newspapers and "new york times" and elsewhere they have different views about what individual right comes from. stanford talks about it being right of rebellion and not coming from the second amendment but from the 14th amendment. and the privilege, so they sort of go in different direction i don't know that they kind of constitute a unified school. but i will say that they believe strongly the things like assault weapons ban is proposed before the congress is constitutional. that -- that is, in fact, what's interesting so if you remember last year, after new town
legislation that was moving through the congress was to strengthen background checks, and extend them especially to gun shows. and that was supported by upwards of 90% of the public in the polls. that bipartisan bill the mansion bill had a majority support in the senate but was killed by a filibuster. people ask me well does this mean this second amendment killed that reasonable restriction and i don't,ic that answer is is no because i think it is pretty plain that that would have been constitutional under the second amendment it was more of the filibuster rule was of the united states senate that had to do with that than the second amendment. i think issues such as assault weapons and other things are more of an open question. but even will, of course upheld in weapon legislation and mr. leavey who has your co-counsel interview to "the washington post" saying certainly he thought it was
constitutional. so as described last year so i don't think that this guy is falling. >> great well alan what is constitutional? audience has a bunch of specifics they want to know about and they ask our background checks assault weapons constitutional, up and down on assault weapons, can we restrict automatic weapons require full regulation of gun owners in addition to requiring background checks. what are your thoughts about open tear rei laws at states like texas, and are you really saying that military style weapons on the streets can't be kept from mentally ill. i don't mean to think it is for the -- >> cases and time remaining but give us a sample people who are curious. >> some of the easier ones is time is short and like to get to other questions if there's time. no i don't believe mentally ill people should access weapons at all. there's background check are going to be upheld by the federal court at least if background checks are are
performed in a way that's too intrusive or opportunity take and undo amount of time those would be upheld so background check is looking at fbi background check to take years complete, obviously, there you have a problem. but instant check where computer systems are checked where people have due process rights to challenge a false positive that comes back those things are going to be upheld. i don't believe that we can prohibit firearms of the kind in common use for traditional awful purposes just because we label them assault weapons or because they look scary. the fact of the matter is that all of these assault weapons bans typically reach very plain vanilla arms oftentimes much less powerful than guns that do not look as menacing but if you look at the functionality of the articles we're dealing withs sympathetic in these type of laws where the other --
open carry this is very badly misunderstood. but the second amendment secures right to bear arms, and going back just as ginsberg supplied the definition in heller of the term what it means to bear arms. two years earlier in versus u.s. justice ginsberg offered her deaf it in addition what it means to bear arms in second amendment it means to wear, bear, carry on your person or in a pocket or in your clothes and arm for the purpose of offense or defense in case of confrontation with another person justice scalia saw that and said thank you that's what we're going say bear arms means when it came time to write the heller opinion that does not mean that you can bear arms in any -- fashion that you would look the state can can regulate manner in which guns are carried. historically, courts thought that our society thought and courts approved the idea that people who hid their guns or con ceal guns sneaky perhaps
wanted advantage of unfair surprise in a society where it was considered to be virtuous to openly carry arms and so conceal carry restrictions were u upheld always with the caveat that the right was not being totally destroyed and in those cases where it was totally destroyed those laws were struck down. today i think we have a different understanding in society -- virtually every state in the country is quite liberal in allowing the conceal carrying of weapons. but the open carrying of arms is seen as provocative and alarm people and so even in places like texas, texas is, obviously, not an antigun jurisdiction you can get conceal handgun license had in texas. but open carrying of guns is not allowed by their law. again it's a it's a regulation that deals with manner in which guns are carried and so banning open carry as long as you align with conceal to carry is guns for self-defense is going to be allowed as well. again, it's the state is's choice i know adam winkler has written he wasn't here today but
on o ed in early times provocative saying -- to o the liberal people don't worry about it. why don't you allow open carry no one will do it and won't be violating the constitution. i think it is an interesting thought but i think you might have been on to something. >> michael what laws or what traditional decisions are you concerned about you criticized position strike down an illinois law that product carrying of a load weapon outside the home you call that a masterpiece of massive aggression because previously criticized, however, now seem to be reading for all it is worth and moted some future regulations that you fear might be challenged in court including -- mocking ammunition. but what is the future like on a litigation front and when are you concerned about? >> so interesting because he's in his krit criticism and continue those criticisms in the opinion it rehash them and say well i can't do anything about that and extended it i suggested
further than it had to go so that the owner legislature has now rewritten law so when you -- so that there's a much more liberalized law in terms of carrying guns in i will and when you walk into place of business there there's a decal on window mow that tells you whether guns are prohibited or not and it is a new era there in illinois. i don't know what kinds of laws are going to be at risk. my -- concern is as i've said i look at this not so much with an expertise on gun control laws. but concern about try aring to make constitutional doctrine based on a kind of a misreading of the role of originalism in the american constitution. origin gnat extent is very important but one of the factors by which we as a country have decided to read the constitution is and how to governor ourselves country evolved and so frequently have been ways we
read these constitutional provisions. my concern with the heller regime around -- guns is to the degree that it says well if something is traditionally awful then it must be lawful now but to me is very circular what if it was brand new. they have musket then and not now and i want to make sure i hope certainly that pushing all of this off into court, and applying these constitutional tests does not choke off the innovation that can actually solve some of these issues this year a statistic last week that i think is really striking. this year there will more people kill master's degree the united states by guns 33,000 than by cars. at one level that's a terrifying statistic most of that, you know, a lot of that is suicide and other thing hads. or there's a lot of people, obviously.
but really interesting thing is why what about cars? cars used to kill many more people. what happened? they made cars safe or. they didn't confiscate or take away right to travel or drive and changed drinking age they put many seat belts. they required air a bags they challenged design of cars all of these ways that overtime with a lot of controversy cars got made safer. and -- there are all kinds of ways to make guns safer less likely to be used by wrong people and less likely be used by children less likely to be in the wrong less likelies used by someone who is not a law-abiding citizen. one of the examples is the kind of microstamping which is a kind of -- marks a bullet as it leaves gun so it could be traced back to the owner that's the kind of thing that will get litigated other things such as smart guns that will get litigated and i wish that the debate out in the
real world is as reasonable as the debate as we're having here as you know many texas, the open carry movement right now is running around with -- with long guns and military weapons going to fast food restaurants, videotaping themselves, and the nra, nra website denounced this said it was weird and kountze productive you know what happened nra having apologized and rep so considerable more extremism and in a sense second fundamentalism that would have been at hope. >> michael had had the first word although you disagree about frames and megging of the text you have agreeed that reasonable regulations may be consistent with the second amendment although perhaps not about about all of the details and -- you've been complimented as target marshal of the second
eat. so -- that's just -- your victory lap and will the future mostly come from courts or public opinion do you expect a lot more significant litigation over o the kinds of laws that michael talked about like no kro targeting but real fight in congress and state legislature? >> fight will be both in the congress and other legislative as well as in the court and it also be in both of the formals as it is with basic rights look the bill of rights did not. but it is absolutely meant to limit that innovation and make sure that even though politicians can always coming up request new and creative way of violating our rights certain basic principles have to be honored and second amendment is one of those principles so laws that -- impact the way in which this this right is traditionally been understood are going to be
struck down just as laws that impact the way that speech rights have always been understood are going to be fined many congruent it is absolutely a future not above our government that we are going to limit the ability of -- of the government to restrict our rights, and it's a free country article five allows us to amend constitution and many people that second amendment is a bad idea justin stevens wrote his recent book and proposed amending constitution rewriting second amendment to make it look more like what he hoped it would say, and justice stevens has the first amendment right to speak as a sm as he wants about that and all of the money he can, and spend and electing people who agree with him on that point of view but at end of the day we have to honor the texaz it is written. if we don't like it we can change it but right now this is the second amendment that we have, and we should be applying it. >> what i told you at the beginning my goal here is to bring the best minds in america
on all synds of the constitutional debate and constitution iser in and you the people make up your own mind it has been an honor to hear these scholar join me in thanking -- [applause] [applause] book tv has covered many authors on the second amendment and gun issues including journalists emily miller and gary young and parents of trayvon martin and tracy martin. if this is a topic that interest you, go to our website booktv.org, and in the search bar, type gun book, and you'll find a large
