Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

The Myth of Continuity in American Gun Culture

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - History - History of North America and the United States

View more figures from University of California Berkeley

View the page of Brian DeLay

Read the Study

Brian DeLay argues today’s U.S gun culture is consumerist, state-phobic, and individualist, whereas early America’s gun culture was utilitarian, state-led, and collective. In this interview DeLay provides detailed critiques of the iterations of the myth of continuity being deployed to overturn laws regulating assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and ghost guns.

Image courtesy of interviewee. April 15, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The speaker, a historian who has spent 15 years studying the international arms trade in the 18th and 19th centuries, discusses their unexpected involvement in Second Amendment cases following the Supreme Court's significant 2022 decision in Bruin. This video video ruling shifted the legal landscape by limiting courts to interpreting whether firearm regulations align with historical context, eliminating public interest considerations in gun regulation cases.

The speaker highlights that prior to the 2008 Heller decision, the Second Amendment was understood to protect the rights associated with state militias, not individual self-defense. The Bruin decision intensified challenges to existing firearm laws and empowered gun rights advocates, causing confusion in legal rulings as judges reached differing conclusions based on the same questions.

Key to the speaker's critique is the "myth of continuity," which posits that contemporary gun culture and 18th-century practices are fundamentally similar, allowing for the argument that since historical regulations were absent, current regulations should similarly be prohibited. They expose this myth as misleading, arguing that historical gun culture was state-led and collective, differing significantly from today's consumerist and individualist culture.

The speaker also addresses the growing issue of "ghost guns," untraceable firearms assembled from kits, and how gun rights advocates are using historical claims to argue against regulations. They assert that while self-made arms did exist historically, the context and social consequences were vastly different.

Ultimately, the speaker believes that the historical analysis required by the Bruin decision will reveal the flaws in previous rulings like Heller and Bruin itself, potentially undermining modern Second Amendment interpretations as new evidence comes to light. They express concern over historians being central to legal discussions on firearm regulation, suggesting that the expertise should lie with public health officials and elected representatives rather than historians.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video you've :

1. **On the Historian's Perspective**:
- "I've been working on a couple of big ambitious projects having to do with the history of the International Arms trade in the 18th and the 19th centuries."

2. **Impact of the Bruin Decision**:
- "After Bruin, I started getting contacted by Attorney General's offices across the country who needed historians to help them try to defend firearms laws from challenges by second Amendment activists."

3. **Changes in Interpretation of the Second Amendment**:
- "Until 2008, courts across the country had determined that the Second Amendment protected rights associated with state militias... that it did not confer an individual right to armed self-defense."

4. **Significance of the Heller and Bruin Decisions**:
- "2008, the Supreme Court changed that interpretation... there were a lot of challenges to existing firearms restrictions across the United States based on this new interpretation of the Second Amendment."

5. **The Shift in Court Approach**:
- "Bruin... said that the only relevant question is whether the regulation that's being challenged is consistent with history, video and tradition."

6. **Critique of Historical Misreading**:
- "Much like Heller, it was based in a really thoroughgoing misreading of the history. Most professional historians... thought that the court got it disastrously wrong."

7. **Discussion on the Myth of Continuity**:
- "Again and again, plaintiffs in these cases... were asserting a fundamental continuity in gun culture in the present... and gun culture in the late 18th century."

8. **Contrasting Gun Cultures**:
- "Whereas in the United States today, gun culture is consumerist, it's state phobic and it's individualist. Early America's gun culture was utilitarian, it was state led, and it was collective."

9. **Critique on Inconsistency in Judicial Interpretation**:
- "One of the strongest critiques... is the incredible inconsistency with which they use history and historical principles in order to decide these cases."

10. **Reflections on Future Involvement of Historians**:
- "Bruin ensures that historians are going to be deeply involved with Second Amendment cases going forward... reason to lament that fact."

11. **Conclusion on the Role of Historians**:
- "I think that really belongs to public health officials, to constitutional scholars... Why should we be involved in these kinds of questions?"

These quotes capture the essential arguments and points made in the video regarding the historical convideo of the Second Amendment, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the implications for future firearms regulation and jurisprudence.

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.895 --> 00:02.745
I've, I'm a historian,

00:03.005 --> 00:06.545
and for 15 years I've been working on a couple

00:06.605 --> 00:09.065
of big ambitious projects having to do with the history

00:09.065 --> 00:10.945
of the International Arms trade in the 18th

00:10.945 --> 00:12.025
and the 19th centuries.

00:13.085 --> 00:16.825
And, you know, in most of that entire time,

00:16.985 --> 00:18.465
I had never, ever been contacted

00:18.465 --> 00:20.825
to work on any kind of Second Amendment case.

00:21.165 --> 00:24.025
Um, and then in the summer of 2022,

00:24.045 --> 00:27.345
the Supreme Court handed down a very significant Second

00:27.345 --> 00:29.065
Amendment decision in Bruin.

00:30.495 --> 00:34.395
Um, and after Bruin, I started getting contacted

00:34.395 --> 00:36.875
by Attorney General's offices across the country

00:36.975 --> 00:39.235
who needed historians to help them try

00:39.235 --> 00:42.635
to defend firearms laws from challenges by,

00:42.635 --> 00:43.715
second Amendment activists.

00:44.535 --> 00:48.555
So the article is in some ways my attempt to sum up

00:48.985 --> 00:50.195
what I've learned in the course

00:50.195 --> 00:51.355
of working in all these cases.

00:51.815 --> 00:53.955
And to put it in a broader, context.

00:55.285 --> 00:59.275
Until 2008, courts across the country

01:00.965 --> 01:05.785
had determined that the Second Amendment protected,

01:06.045 --> 01:09.305
rights associated with state militias, that is to say

01:09.335 --> 01:12.825
that, the, the text of the amendment was interpreted to

01:14.065 --> 01:16.355
bear upon the rights

01:16.815 --> 01:19.115
of persons participating in militias.

01:19.575 --> 01:23.535
And so, courts had this found

01:23.665 --> 01:26.455
until 2008 that it did not confer an individual right

01:26.455 --> 01:27.455
to armed self-defense.

01:28.595 --> 01:31.655
2008, the Supreme Court changed that interpretation

01:31.655 --> 01:34.095
with a very important decision, named Heller

01:35.785 --> 01:37.365
in the aftermath of Heller.

01:37.865 --> 01:40.645
Um, understandably, there were a lot of challenges

01:40.645 --> 01:43.245
to existing firearms restrictions across the United States

01:43.245 --> 01:45.165
based on this new interpret interpretation

01:45.165 --> 01:46.445
of the Second Amendment and the right.

01:47.305 --> 01:49.885
And what emerged over the course

01:49.885 --> 01:54.165
of the next several years was a two-step process that courts

01:54.165 --> 01:56.725
around the country used when assessing

01:56.725 --> 01:57.805
Second Amendment challenges.

01:58.665 --> 02:03.125
The first question that courts were asking was whether

02:03.185 --> 02:07.885
or not, the regulation in question was in line

02:07.915 --> 02:09.445
with history, text and tradition.

02:09.445 --> 02:11.885
That is to say it's rooted in the, in the nation's history

02:11.885 --> 02:13.045
of firearms regulation.

02:14.145 --> 02:17.125
And if, depending on the answer to that question,

02:17.125 --> 02:19.805
they asked an another relevant question that you would think

02:19.805 --> 02:22.525
that courts, across the, any country would wanna ask,

02:22.525 --> 02:24.365
which is, what is the public interest

02:25.025 --> 02:26.685
in having this regulation on the books?

02:26.945 --> 02:29.045
And they tried to assess these two issues.

02:30.575 --> 02:33.805
Bruin, in the summer of 2022, authored by,

02:33.925 --> 02:37.495
Clarence Thomas said that that was one step too many,

02:38.125 --> 02:42.015
that the only relevant question of these two is whether

02:42.035 --> 02:46.255
or not, the regulation that's being challenged,

02:46.275 --> 02:47.655
is consistent with history, text

02:47.655 --> 02:49.415
and tradition, that in other words,

02:49.415 --> 02:51.615
courts were no longer permitted

02:51.955 --> 02:54.535
to assess public interest when it comes to firearms law.

02:55.165 --> 02:58.865
So it's an absolutely extraordinary decision. Um, much like

02:58.925 --> 03:00.405
Heller, it was based in

03:01.125 --> 03:04.605
a really thoroughgoing misreading of the history.

03:05.185 --> 03:07.885
Um, much like Heller, most professional historians

03:07.885 --> 03:09.245
with relevant expertise thought

03:09.245 --> 03:11.565
that the court got it disastrously wrong.

03:12.505 --> 03:16.045
And, since that decision came down in the summer

03:16.045 --> 03:20.565
of 2022, there's been a deluge of challenges basically

03:20.565 --> 03:24.205
to almost every firearms regulation on the books,

03:24.225 --> 03:28.525
and an emboldened gun rights, movement

03:28.635 --> 03:30.845
that thinks that, you know, they're going to be able

03:30.845 --> 03:32.445
to overturn virtually every firearms

03:32.445 --> 03:33.485
regulation on the books.

03:33.665 --> 03:34.765
So,

03:35.495 --> 03:38.965
Bruin has not only really shifted the parameters

03:38.965 --> 03:41.485
and the, the, the, the, the relevant questions that have

03:41.485 --> 03:42.965
to be asked in these, in these cases,

03:43.745 --> 03:48.725
but it's also advanced a, a model

03:48.865 --> 03:50.165
for how these cases are supposed to go,

03:50.165 --> 03:51.965
that frankly is really incoherent,

03:51.965 --> 03:55.805
and that is leading to a really messy jurisprudence

03:56.055 --> 03:57.125
where judges faced

03:57.125 --> 03:58.925
with exactly the same questions are coming

03:58.925 --> 04:00.325
to radically different decisions.

04:00.825 --> 04:04.965
Uh, so the myth of continuity, one of the most,

04:06.325 --> 04:09.225
one of the big observations that I came away

04:09.225 --> 04:12.425
with having worked on many of these cases is that again

04:12.425 --> 04:15.505
and again, plaintiffs in these cases

04:15.765 --> 04:18.705
and the experts that, that these plaintiffs had recruited

04:18.705 --> 04:21.825
to help them make their arguments were asserting a

04:21.825 --> 04:26.345
fundamental continuity in gun culture in the present in the

04:26.345 --> 04:28.425
United States and gun culture in the late 18th century

04:28.425 --> 04:29.625
around the time of the founding.

04:31.135 --> 04:35.275
And the, this argument takes all kinds of different,

04:35.835 --> 04:37.315
manifestations depending on the particular

04:37.315 --> 04:38.795
regulation that's under attack.

04:39.575 --> 04:43.755
But the basic premise here is that yeah, guns are,

04:44.095 --> 04:47.075
are different in some ways than they were in the late 18th

04:47.075 --> 04:48.675
century, but they're not that different.

04:49.255 --> 04:51.355
And yeah, maybe people are using them

04:51.375 --> 04:52.875
for somewhat different purposes,

04:52.875 --> 04:54.515
but they're not that different, right?

04:54.615 --> 04:56.075
So the guns aren't that different.

04:56.415 --> 04:58.715
The, the reasons people want them aren't that different.

04:58.745 --> 05:00.435
What they do with them is not that different.

05:01.135 --> 05:04.235
The big discontinuity is regulation

05:04.625 --> 05:07.315
that the founders didn't regulate what people did with guns.

05:07.655 --> 05:10.435
And therefore, we can't regulate what people do

05:10.435 --> 05:12.075
with guns either, because this is every,

05:12.135 --> 05:13.875
all the other factors here are basically the same.

05:13.895 --> 05:17.675
That's effectively the, the big 30,000 foot, description

05:17.675 --> 05:19.075
of what the myth of continuity is.

05:19.665 --> 05:24.115
Well, the myth is being deployed as kind

05:24.115 --> 05:27.635
of the fundamental grammar of many of these

05:28.805 --> 05:31.595
court cases, kind of regardless of

05:31.595 --> 05:33.195
what the specific regulation is.

05:33.255 --> 05:36.075
So the, a abstracted at its most basic is,

05:36.175 --> 05:39.035
is the myth breaks down into sort of three step argument.

05:39.055 --> 05:43.595
It says, X firearms related issue has been

05:43.595 --> 05:47.585
around since the founding second,

05:47.925 --> 05:50.545
the founders themselves didn't do anything about it.

05:51.365 --> 05:53.585
And third, as a consequence of Bruin,

05:53.805 --> 05:55.585
we can't do anything about it either.

05:56.605 --> 05:58.885
And so, you know, it really depends if, if,

05:58.885 --> 06:01.365
if we're talking about prohibitions on assault weapons

06:01.905 --> 06:05.045
or high capacity magazines or ghost guns

06:05.265 --> 06:06.965
or, you know, pick your, your issue,

06:07.545 --> 06:09.525
the myth takes different forms depending on

06:09.525 --> 06:10.565
what the issue is at stake.

06:10.625 --> 06:13.605
But the basic argument is, is really consistent

06:14.115 --> 06:17.085
that the highest level, I think the most important things

06:17.675 --> 06:20.925
that historians have found about gun culture in the late

06:21.125 --> 06:24.005
18th century and gun culture in our own times is

06:24.005 --> 06:26.525
that whereas in the United States today,

06:26.785 --> 06:30.685
gun culture is consumerist, it's state phobic

06:31.545 --> 06:33.045
and it's individualist.

06:33.705 --> 06:36.925
Um, early America's gun culture was utilitarian,

06:37.705 --> 06:40.885
it was state led, and it was collective.

06:41.625 --> 06:44.885
So the fundamental facts structuring,

06:45.025 --> 06:48.125
gun culture in early America were just really different in

06:48.125 --> 06:50.205
ways that is, extremely important

06:50.305 --> 06:53.565
for judges making these important decisions to understand.

06:54.695 --> 06:58.265
Well, this is at probably, the kind

06:58.265 --> 06:59.825
of second amendment case where the myth

06:59.825 --> 07:03.385
of continuity has been most, elaborated.

07:04.205 --> 07:07.815
Um, and what opponents

07:07.995 --> 07:09.615
of limits on assault weapons

07:09.635 --> 07:12.335
or high capacity magazines have been claiming about the past

07:13.035 --> 07:16.015
is that fundamentally, when we're talking about these kinds

07:16.015 --> 07:18.335
of cases, we're talking about repeating firearms,

07:18.435 --> 07:20.415
the technology of repeating firearms

07:21.115 --> 07:23.895
and combing through museum catalogs

07:24.155 --> 07:26.255
and, histories of firearms technology.

07:26.825 --> 07:29.895
These proponents of the myth of continuity have insisted

07:29.895 --> 07:33.975
that repeating technology, you know, repeating firearms

07:33.975 --> 07:36.535
or a technology that's been around for hundreds of years,

07:37.795 --> 07:41.775
and in a narrow technical sense, it's true, it

07:42.315 --> 07:46.295
gun makers in Europe in particular, starting as early maybe

07:46.355 --> 07:49.255
as the 16th, 15th, even 16th centuries,

07:50.365 --> 07:53.655
they understood that if they could figure out how to

07:54.215 --> 07:56.575
engineer a firearm so that it would fire more than once

07:56.575 --> 07:59.135
with a single loading, that that would be a force multiplier

07:59.485 --> 08:01.975
that would be incredibly valuable to militaries,

08:02.315 --> 08:03.775
to potential consumers.

08:04.355 --> 08:07.095
Um, and so a lot of innovation went into trying

08:07.095 --> 08:08.615
to design these firearms.

08:08.615 --> 08:11.575
And there are numerous examples of attempts

08:11.635 --> 08:15.015
to create repeating firearms in museums in Europe,

08:15.075 --> 08:16.375
and now in the United States.

08:17.275 --> 08:20.255
Um, what the proponents of the myth

08:20.255 --> 08:21.935
of continuity obscure in these cases,

08:21.935 --> 08:25.135
however, is that while there were all kinds

08:25.135 --> 08:28.495
of clever designs to come up with repeating firearms,

08:28.885 --> 08:31.615
that they were, first of all, they were,

08:32.005 --> 08:34.415
they represented a tiny, tiny fraction of the,

08:34.475 --> 08:37.415
all the firearms in the world in at the time, prior to the

08:38.505 --> 08:40.215
third decade of the 19th century.

08:41.035 --> 08:43.895
Um, secondly, almost none of them worked well.

08:44.475 --> 08:47.895
So they were highly unreliable and even unsafe to the user.

08:48.595 --> 08:52.095
Um, they were incredibly expensive if they were made well.

08:52.795 --> 08:56.245
And these firearms had never had any kind

08:56.245 --> 08:58.245
of significance either militarily

08:58.465 --> 09:01.205
or really commercially outside of a paper thin slice

09:01.625 --> 09:03.765
of Europe's, consuming elite.

09:04.505 --> 09:05.565
Um, and, and

09:05.565 --> 09:08.245
consequently repeating firearms had never produced any

09:08.245 --> 09:09.325
social consequences.

09:10.145 --> 09:13.445
And the reason that matters so much is that the argument

09:13.715 --> 09:17.965
that the gun rights, advocates make in these cases is

09:17.965 --> 09:20.565
that repeating firearms technology existed

09:20.665 --> 09:21.765
at the time of the founding.

09:22.385 --> 09:25.685
The founders didn't regulate repeating firearms technology,

09:25.705 --> 09:26.885
and therefore we can't either.

09:27.505 --> 09:31.205
But that argument relies on this fundamental distortion of

09:31.205 --> 09:32.605
what regulation is.

09:32.865 --> 09:34.885
So, you know, regulators around the world deal

09:34.885 --> 09:36.685
with actual social problems.

09:36.795 --> 09:39.285
They deal with things that are actually affecting

09:39.345 --> 09:40.405
the world they inhabit.

09:41.155 --> 09:44.445
They're not seeking the furthest regions

09:44.465 --> 09:46.165
of notional technologies

09:46.665 --> 09:48.725
and then preemptively regulating it.

09:48.725 --> 09:50.645
That's not how regulation worked in the 18th century,

09:50.825 --> 09:53.005
and it's almost never how regulation works even now.

09:53.745 --> 09:57.205
Um, and so consequently repeating firearms, yes,

09:57.205 --> 09:59.405
they existed, they existed in ways

09:59.405 --> 10:01.885
that were far less consequential than these,

10:02.405 --> 10:03.965
advocates would want judges to believe,

10:04.505 --> 10:06.765
and they did not attract regulatory attention

10:06.765 --> 10:08.725
because they had zero social consequences.

10:09.075 --> 10:10.765
Well, I mean, I think I,

10:10.885 --> 10:12.645
I do not accept at face value the claim

10:12.645 --> 10:14.005
that these judges are textualists.

10:14.945 --> 10:17.725
Um, I think that that is something that we should regard

10:17.745 --> 10:19.205
as a claim rather than a fact.

10:19.505 --> 10:24.125
Um, the, I think one of the strongest critiques

10:24.125 --> 10:25.525
that's been leveled at this court,

10:25.665 --> 10:27.365
in particular about Bruin,

10:27.365 --> 10:29.485
but about other cases that have been decided in the last

10:29.485 --> 10:33.965
several years, is the incredible inconsistency

10:33.965 --> 10:35.165
with which they use history

10:35.165 --> 10:37.485
and historical principles in order to decide these cases.

10:38.385 --> 10:40.805
And it is, I think, very difficult

10:41.445 --> 10:43.665
for a fair minded observer to not simply conclude

10:43.665 --> 10:44.705
that this is a political body.

10:45.685 --> 10:49.465
So this is a newer area of Second Amendment jurisprudence,

10:49.525 --> 10:51.465
unsurprisingly, because this is a

10:51.465 --> 10:52.865
relatively new technology.

10:52.925 --> 10:54.625
So the basic context is that

10:55.915 --> 11:00.865
there's a law in the United States that, guns sold,

11:01.045 --> 11:03.985
by federally licensed firearms, either manufacturers

11:04.005 --> 11:07.065
or dealers must bear serial numbers on

11:07.065 --> 11:08.585
certain critical components of the gun.

11:09.445 --> 11:12.545
And that law has been around for more than half a century,

11:12.885 --> 11:15.625
and it is totally vital to,

11:16.165 --> 11:18.105
law enforcement's capacity to solve gun crime.

11:19.795 --> 11:24.385
There was a carve out in the initial law in, 1960s

11:24.455 --> 11:27.465
that said that this is not going to apply to hobbyists

11:27.885 --> 11:29.505
who make their own firearms.

11:30.575 --> 11:34.105
That concession has now opened a, a, a a, an opportunity

11:34.325 --> 11:36.345
for a sort of thriving sub-industry

11:36.345 --> 11:37.625
to evolve over the last decade

11:37.685 --> 11:42.385
or so where companies produce parts and

11:42.485 --> 11:45.425
or kits with, you know, all the parts that are necessary

11:45.535 --> 11:47.825
that aren't entirely finished,

11:48.945 --> 11:52.085
but that come with either in the package

11:52.225 --> 11:53.925
or freely available online.

11:54.075 --> 11:57.165
Very simple instructions that allow people with no skill

11:57.345 --> 12:02.205
and no special tools usually to finish the unfinished pieces

12:02.425 --> 12:03.925
and then quickly assemble a firearm

12:04.075 --> 12:05.325
that has no serial numbers.

12:05.985 --> 12:07.645
And this is legal in many states.

12:09.055 --> 12:11.405
These so-called ghost guns,

12:11.795 --> 12:15.205
have caused increasing problems in the United States.

12:15.465 --> 12:18.325
Um, you know, often it enables people who are not of age

12:18.785 --> 12:20.765
who cannot pass a background check, right?

12:20.905 --> 12:22.605
Um, who were involved in criminal activity

12:22.625 --> 12:23.965
to acquire firearms that would

12:23.965 --> 12:25.005
otherwise be difficult to acquire.

12:25.825 --> 12:27.045
And, so

12:27.125 --> 12:29.925
consequently, many states in the United States have begun

12:29.925 --> 12:32.325
passing regulations seeking to regulate this,

12:32.355 --> 12:36.895
this new novel technology gun rights groups

12:37.325 --> 12:41.855
opposed to these regulations, have developed a version

12:41.855 --> 12:46.055
of the myth of continuity that, claims that,

12:46.645 --> 12:51.055
self-made arms are a venerable American tradition

12:51.205 --> 12:53.575
that had been going on since the colonial era

12:53.885 --> 12:56.575
that were in fact, critical to the ability

12:56.715 --> 12:58.015
of the 13 colonies

12:58.015 --> 12:59.895
to win their independence from Great Britain.

13:00.555 --> 13:03.135
And that had never been regulated by the founders before,

13:03.155 --> 13:06.935
and therefore, after Bruin, we may not regulate them either.

13:08.435 --> 13:10.135
And on the face of it,

13:10.135 --> 13:11.975
it could sound like a really preposterous claim.

13:12.395 --> 13:14.575
And as a professional historian who has come

13:14.575 --> 13:16.855
to know a whole lot about this, I'm here

13:16.855 --> 13:19.015
to tell you it is in fact a preposterous claim.

13:19.755 --> 13:23.535
Um, but the, again, like the version of the myth

13:23.535 --> 13:25.695
of continuity that's deployed for assault weapons and,

13:25.715 --> 13:30.265
and high capacity magazines, the individual fact claims

13:30.495 --> 13:33.985
that are often made in the expert declarations in these

13:33.985 --> 13:36.225
cases, or by the plaintiffs in their complaints,

13:36.965 --> 13:38.065
are often true.

13:38.655 --> 13:41.065
It's just that they've been so totally denuded of context,

13:41.645 --> 13:45.345
and they've been so stripped of the vital surrounding facts

13:45.345 --> 13:47.825
that one would need in order to appropriately assess them

13:48.295 --> 13:50.545
that they pres they end up presenting a profoundly

13:50.545 --> 13:51.625
misleading, picture.

13:52.085 --> 13:53.625
So, you know, the quick version

13:53.805 --> 13:55.905
of what's actually happening when it comes

13:55.905 --> 13:58.145
to the manufacturing of firearms in the 18th

13:58.145 --> 13:59.465
and early 19th century is

13:59.465 --> 14:03.585
that it was unsurprisingly a professional activity, right?

14:04.085 --> 14:06.945
It was not the case that amateurs could just decide

14:06.945 --> 14:08.785
to make their own guns because they needed them.

14:09.255 --> 14:10.385
That that didn't happen

14:10.385 --> 14:12.185
because guns were really hard to make

14:12.185 --> 14:14.905
and making them badly had very significant consequences.

14:15.645 --> 14:19.105
Um, and so, once again, you know, from my perspective

14:19.105 --> 14:23.755
as a historian, there is a tradition in this country whereby

14:24.375 --> 14:25.955
new technologies emerge.

14:26.775 --> 14:28.715
That's step one. Step two,

14:28.715 --> 14:31.115
these technologies become sufficiently reliable

14:31.375 --> 14:34.395
and widespread to begin generating social consequences.

14:35.295 --> 14:37.715
And then step three, regulators respond

14:37.715 --> 14:40.155
to these new social consequences with regulations.

14:40.535 --> 14:43.275
And that is the American tradition of regulating firearms.

14:43.295 --> 14:45.035
And it's, it goes back, you know,

14:45.105 --> 14:46.635
into the early 19th century,

14:47.055 --> 14:48.395
and it stretches all the way through.

14:48.395 --> 14:50.315
And actually what's happening with ghost guns is

14:50.835 --> 14:52.845
absolutely a classic example of

14:52.845 --> 14:54.365
that American tradition of regulation.

14:54.515 --> 14:57.685
Because as soon as these ghost guns had become reliable

14:57.705 --> 15:00.045
and widespread enough to begin generating social

15:00.045 --> 15:02.125
consequences, states across the country are

15:02.125 --> 15:03.285
responding with legislation.

15:03.995 --> 15:08.205
Well, Bruin ensures that historians are going

15:08.205 --> 15:09.325
to be deeply involved

15:09.485 --> 15:11.125
with Second Amendment cases going forward.

15:11.305 --> 15:14.525
And until, and unless the decision is radically altered

15:14.545 --> 15:19.265
or even one day maybe overturned, I think there's reason

15:19.285 --> 15:20.305
to lament that fact.

15:20.705 --> 15:23.785
I mean, from my perspective as a citizen, I don't think

15:23.785 --> 15:25.105
that historians are the ones

15:25.105 --> 15:27.545
that I want driving the bus when it comes to, or,

15:27.545 --> 15:29.905
or making very significant decisions when it comes

15:29.905 --> 15:31.265
to questions of firearm safety

15:31.265 --> 15:32.705
and firearms regulation in this country.

15:33.305 --> 15:36.065
I mean, I think that really belongs to,

15:36.365 --> 15:40.185
public health officials, to, constitutional scholars,

15:40.445 --> 15:43.865
to, legally elected appropriate elected, you know,

15:43.965 --> 15:45.665
representatives, you know,

15:45.665 --> 15:48.105
and to communities, to faith leaders, to all kinds

15:48.105 --> 15:50.265
of people, historians.

15:50.325 --> 15:52.145
Why should we be involved in these kinds of questions?

15:52.245 --> 15:54.025
But we are involved in these kinds of questions.

15:54.025 --> 15:56.665
And so my while, while on the one hand I think

15:56.665 --> 16:01.375
that's regrettable, on the other hand, I do think that,

16:02.155 --> 16:04.175
by mandating

16:04.765 --> 16:08.535
that authorities across the country recruit historians in

16:08.535 --> 16:10.055
order to defend firearms laws

16:10.275 --> 16:13.255
and look deeply into the founding era

16:13.355 --> 16:16.135
and the role of firearms in American life in the founding

16:16.135 --> 16:18.655
era, I think that inadvertently

16:18.655 --> 16:20.895
what the Bruin decision's going to do is it's going

16:20.895 --> 16:22.775
to only make it clear

16:23.155 --> 16:26.855
and clear how badly decided both Heller

16:26.855 --> 16:27.935
and Bruin were, right.

16:28.055 --> 16:30.975
I mean, the court is mandating that we produce new knowledge

16:30.975 --> 16:33.975
and learn more and more about what was actually happening

16:33.975 --> 16:36.135
around the time of the founding with guns in American life.

16:36.635 --> 16:39.975
And those facts do not support the court's interpretation.

16:40.675 --> 16:45.055
So I actually think that this, all this work in the medium

16:45.155 --> 16:47.455
to long term is gonna undermine the very foundation

16:47.455 --> 16:49.695
of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence in this country.

00:00 - I've, I'm a historian, and for 15 years I've been working on a couple of big ambitious projects having to do with the history of the International Arms trade in the 18th and the 19th centuries. And, you know, in most of that entire time,

00:16 - I had never, ever been contacted to work on any kind of Second Amendment case. and then in the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court handed down a very significant Second Amendment decision in Bruin. and after Bruin, I started getting contacted by Attorney General's offices across the country who needed historians to help them try to defend firearms laws from challenges by, second Amendment activists.

00:44 - So the article is in some ways my attempt to sum up what I've learned in the course of working in all these cases. And to put it in a broader, context. Until 2008, courts across the country had determined that the Second Amendment protected, rights associated with state militias, that is to say that, the, the text of the amendment was interpreted to bear upon the rights of persons participating in militias.

01:19 - And so, courts had this found until 2008 that it did not confer an individual right to armed self-defense. 2008, the Supreme Court changed that interpretation with a very important decision, named Heller in the aftermath of Heller. understandably, there were a lot of challenges to existing firearms restrictions across the United States based on this new interpret interpretation of the Second Amendment and the right.

01:47 - And what emerged over the course of the next several years was a two-step process that courts around the country used when assessing Second Amendment challenges. The first question that courts were asking was whether or not, the regulation in question was in line with history, text and tradition. That is to say it's rooted in the, in the nation's history of firearms regulation. And if, depending on the answer to that question,

02:17 - they asked an another relevant question that you would think that courts, across the, any country would wanna ask, which is, what is the public interest in having this regulation on the books? And they tried to assess these two issues. Bruin, in the summer of 2022, authored by, Clarence Thomas said that that was one step too many, that the only relevant question of these two is whether or not, the regulation that's being challenged, is consistent with history, text

02:47 - and tradition, that in other words, courts were no longer permitted to assess public interest when it comes to firearms law. So it's an absolutely extraordinary decision. much like Heller, it was based in a really thoroughgoing misreading of the history. much like Heller, most professional historians with relevant expertise thought that the court got it disastrously wrong. And, since that decision came down in the summer

03:16 - of 2022, there's been a deluge of challenges basically to almost every firearms regulation on the books, and an emboldened gun rights, movement that thinks that, you know, they're going to be able to overturn virtually every firearms regulation on the books. So, Bruin has not only really shifted the parameters and the, the, the, the, the relevant questions that have to be asked in these, in these cases,

03:43 - but it's also advanced a, a model for how these cases are supposed to go, that frankly is really incoherent, and that is leading to a really messy jurisprudence where judges faced with exactly the same questions are coming to radically different decisions. so the myth of continuity, one of the most, one of the big observations that I came away with having worked on many of these cases is that again

04:12 - and again, plaintiffs in these cases and the experts that, that these plaintiffs had recruited to help them make their arguments were asserting a fundamental continuity in gun culture in the present in the United States and gun culture in the late 18th century around the time of the founding. And the, this argument takes all kinds of different, manifestations depending on the particular regulation that's under attack. But the basic premise here is that yeah, guns are,

04:44 - are different in some ways than they were in the late 18th century, but they're not that different. And yeah, maybe people are using them for somewhat different purposes, but they're not that different, right? So the guns aren't that different. The, the reasons people want them aren't that different. What they do with them is not that different. The big discontinuity is regulation that the founders didn't regulate what people did with guns.

05:07 - And therefore, we can't regulate what people do with guns either, because this is every, all the other factors here are basically the same. That's effectively the, the big 30,000 foot, description of what the myth of continuity is. Well, the myth is being deployed as kind of the fundamental grammar of many of these court cases, kind of regardless of what the specific regulation is. So the, a abstracted at its most basic is,

05:36 - is the myth breaks down into sort of three step argument. It says, X firearms related issue has been around since the founding second, the founders themselves didn't do anything about it. And third, as a consequence of Bruin, we can't do anything about it either. And so, you know, it really depends if, if, if we're talking about prohibitions on assault weapons or high capacity magazines or ghost guns or, you know, pick your, your issue,

06:07 - the myth takes different forms depending on what the issue is at stake. But the basic argument is, is really consistent that the highest level, I think the most important things that historians have found about gun culture in the late 18th century and gun culture in our own times is that whereas in the United States today, gun culture is consumerist, it's state phobic and it's individualist. early America's gun culture was utilitarian,

06:37 - it was state led, and it was collective. So the fundamental facts structuring, gun culture in early America were just really different in ways that is, extremely important for judges making these important decisions to understand. Well, this is at probably, the kind of second amendment case where the myth of continuity has been most, elaborated. and what opponents of limits on assault weapons

07:09 - or high capacity magazines have been claiming about the past is that fundamentally, when we're talking about these kinds of cases, we're talking about repeating firearms, the technology of repeating firearms and combing through museum catalogs and, histories of firearms technology. These proponents of the myth of continuity have insisted that repeating technology, you know, repeating firearms or a technology that's been around for hundreds of years, and in a narrow technical sense, it's true, it

07:42 - gun makers in Europe in particular, starting as early maybe as the 16th, 15th, even 16th centuries, they understood that if they could figure out how to engineer a firearm so that it would fire more than once with a single loading, that that would be a force multiplier that would be incredibly valuable to militaries, to potential consumers. and so a lot of innovation went into trying to design these firearms. And there are numerous examples of attempts

08:11 - to create repeating firearms in museums in Europe, and now in the United States. what the proponents of the myth of continuity obscure in these cases, however, is that while there were all kinds of clever designs to come up with repeating firearms, that they were, first of all, they were, they represented a tiny, tiny fraction of the, all the firearms in the world in at the time, prior to the third decade of the 19th century.

08:41 - secondly, almost none of them worked well. So they were highly unreliable and even unsafe to the user. they were incredibly expensive if they were made well. And these firearms had never had any kind of significance either militarily or really commercially outside of a paper thin slice of Europe's, consuming elite. and, and consequently repeating firearms had never produced any social consequences.

09:10 - And the reason that matters so much is that the argument that the gun rights, advocates make in these cases is that repeating firearms technology existed at the time of the founding. The founders didn't regulate repeating firearms technology, and therefore we can't either. But that argument relies on this fundamental distortion of what regulation is. So, you know, regulators around the world deal with actual social problems.

09:36 - They deal with things that are actually affecting the world they inhabit. They're not seeking the furthest regions of notional technologies and then preemptively regulating it. That's not how regulation worked in the 18th century, and it's almost never how regulation works even now. and so consequently repeating firearms, yes, they existed, they existed in ways that were far less consequential than these,

10:02 - advocates would want judges to believe, and they did not attract regulatory attention because they had zero social consequences. Well, I mean, I think I, I do not accept at face value the claim that these judges are textualists. I think that that is something that we should regard as a claim rather than a fact. the, I think one of the strongest critiques that's been leveled at this court,

10:25 - in particular about Bruin, but about other cases that have been decided in the last several years, is the incredible inconsistency with which they use history and historical principles in order to decide these cases. And it is, I think, very difficult for a fair minded observer to not simply conclude that this is a political body. So this is a newer area of Second Amendment jurisprudence, unsurprisingly, because this is a

10:51 - relatively new technology. So the basic context is that there's a law in the United States that, guns sold, by federally licensed firearms, either manufacturers or dealers must bear serial numbers on certain critical components of the gun. And that law has been around for more than half a century, and it is totally vital to, law enforcement's capacity to solve gun crime. There was a carve out in the initial law in, 1960s

11:24 - that said that this is not going to apply to hobbyists who make their own firearms. That concession has now opened a, a, a a, an opportunity for a sort of thriving sub-industry to evolve over the last decade or so where companies produce parts and or kits with, you know, all the parts that are necessary that aren't entirely finished, but that come with either in the package or freely available online.

11:54 - Very simple instructions that allow people with no skill and no special tools usually to finish the unfinished pieces and then quickly assemble a firearm that has no serial numbers. And this is legal in many states. These so-called ghost guns, have caused increasing problems in the United States. you know, often it enables people who are not of age who cannot pass a background check, right? who were involved in criminal activity

12:22 - to acquire firearms that would otherwise be difficult to acquire. And, so consequently, many states in the United States have begun passing regulations seeking to regulate this, this new novel technology gun rights groups opposed to these regulations, have developed a version of the myth of continuity that, claims that, self-made arms are a venerable American tradition that had been going on since the colonial era

12:53 - that were in fact, critical to the ability of the 13 colonies to win their independence from Great Britain. And that had never been regulated by the founders before, and therefore, after Bruin, we may not regulate them either. And on the face of it, it could sound like a really preposterous claim. And as a professional historian who has come to know a whole lot about this, I'm here to tell you it is in fact a preposterous claim.

13:19 - but the, again, like the version of the myth of continuity that's deployed for assault weapons and, and high capacity magazines, the individual fact claims that are often made in the expert declarations in these cases, or by the plaintiffs in their complaints, are often true. It's just that they've been so totally denuded of context, and they've been so stripped of the vital surrounding facts that one would need in order to appropriately assess them that they pres they end up presenting a profoundly

13:50 - misleading, picture. So, you know, the quick version of what's actually happening when it comes to the manufacturing of firearms in the 18th and early 19th century is that it was unsurprisingly a professional activity, right? It was not the case that amateurs could just decide to make their own guns because they needed them. That that didn't happen because guns were really hard to make

14:12 - and making them badly had very significant consequences. and so, once again, you know, from my perspective as a historian, there is a tradition in this country whereby new technologies emerge. That's step one. Step two, these technologies become sufficiently reliable and widespread to begin generating social consequences. And then step three, regulators respond to these new social consequences with regulations. And that is the American tradition of regulating firearms.

14:43 - And it's, it goes back, you know, into the early 19th century, and it stretches all the way through. And actually what's happening with ghost guns is absolutely a classic example of that American tradition of regulation. Because as soon as these ghost guns had become reliable and widespread enough to begin generating social consequences, states across the country are responding with legislation.

15:03 - Well, Bruin ensures that historians are going to be deeply involved with Second Amendment cases going forward. And until, and unless the decision is radically altered or even one day maybe overturned, I think there's reason to lament that fact. I mean, from my perspective as a citizen, I don't think that historians are the ones that I want driving the bus when it comes to, or, or making very significant decisions when it comes

15:29 - to questions of firearm safety and firearms regulation in this country. I mean, I think that really belongs to, public health officials, to, constitutional scholars, to, legally elected appropriate elected, you know, representatives, you know, and to communities, to faith leaders, to all kinds of people, historians. Why should we be involved in these kinds of questions? But we are involved in these kinds of questions.

15:54 - And so my while, while on the one hand I think that's regrettable, on the other hand, I do think that, by mandating that authorities across the country recruit historians in order to defend firearms laws and look deeply into the founding era and the role of firearms in American life in the founding era, I think that inadvertently what the Bruin decision's going to do is it's going to only make it clear

16:23 - and clear how badly decided both Heller and Bruin were, right. I mean, the court is mandating that we produce new knowledge and learn more and more about what was actually happening around the time of the founding with guns in American life. And those facts do not support the court's interpretation. So I actually think that this, all this work in the medium to long term is gonna undermine the very foundation of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence in this country.

Faculti AI can make mistakes