Our guest today is David E. Young, author, historian researcher...Before we begin, a brief biography is in order to introduce some of you to who this man is, what he's done, and why it's important for RKBA activists to know about his significant work.
Biographical Information:With the preliminaries out of the way, let's ask some questions!
David E. Young
Born, 1947, Flint, Michigan
Graduated with high honors, Michigan State University, 1972, with Bachelor of Science Degree in Park and Recreation Resources specializing in Environmental Interpretation (Naturalist).
Have minors in Music Composition, Mathematics, Earth Sciences, and Biology.
Retired from career with Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources in 2002.
Primarily employed as Park Ranger and Commissioned Park Officer at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan's largest.
Founded Golden Oak Books in 1987 specifically to self-publish results of research (all self-financed).
Author: True Bear Tales, 1987, 1992, 1996, 2005
Editor: The Origin of the Second Amendment, 1991, 1995, 2001
Author: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, published Dec. 21, 2007
Hobbies and avocations:
Studying American historical documents relating to development of the Second Amendment as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution
Collecting Lake Superior Agates
DC: Until I started doing some background research on you, I’d assumed you were a lifelong academic. But I find out you’re a retired park ranger. Tell me about that part of your life.
DY: A career in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources working as a mid-level state park ranger, primarily at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, made it possible for me to spend my non-working hours at home with my family pursuing my own interests. For eighteen years at work, I volunteered as a chief steward for the Michigan State Employees Association helping other DNR employees with work related issues; experiences that helped me much better understand people and bureaucracy.
While park ranger may not be the most prestigious of all careers, most Americans trapped in large metro areas can only dream of the fabulous surroundings in which I worked at Michigan's largest state park along the shores of Lake Superior, or the variety of endeavors rangers there were involved in. Porkies rangers are jacks of all trades. As a result of my career, I can do anything (almost).
DC: How did you get interested in Second Amendment scholarship?
DY: Because of the tremendous push for gun control after President Kennedy's assassination in 1963 and the disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment that resulted from the gun control agenda that developed afterwards, I got hooked on the controversy over the amendment's intent. By the time I was at Michigan State in the late 60's and early 70's, with the Second Amendment intent dispute continually increasing as more and more gun control laws were sought, I decided to find out for myself exactly why the Founders used the specific language they did and exactly what it meant to them. After graduating from Michigan State University, I decided to pursue in my spare time a personal study of the relevant period historical sources for understanding the Second Amendment. It took several years before it was clear exactly what the RELEVANT historical sources were that I needed to obtain and study.
DC: You started doing your research in the 70’s—long before the Internet made a lot of information available from the comfort of home. I’m assuming it involved a lot of travel and no small amount of personal expense. Give us a feel for what that was like, the major places where you looked for information, an overview of the process you went through…
DY: Not being a wealthy person, having well-to-do relatives, or living next to an extensive university library, I sought out used books early on in my research. Hunting for document collections at used bookstores became a passion. A trip anywhere resulted in considerable time spent rummaging in used bookstores, especially any trip to the East Lansing or Ann Arbor areas. Research led to a better understanding of exactly what sources were those most relevant, and it became apparent that I must do some library research as well as obtain certain document collections, even if that meant buying new books. The more information I got, the more information it became apparent would be needed. I made several overnight trips specifically to hunt for material at Northern Michigan University's library. I also started forking out a small fortune by my standards for new copies of document collections so they could be pursued at my own pace at home. The $50+ price of many of these volumes needed in the late 70's and early 80's was really a problem due to the fact that my wife took care of our children and did not have an outside job, and park ranger is not the highest paid of professions.
DC: Any surprises along the way? Did you glean any information from any unlikely sources? Did you have any preconceptions challenged or overturned?
DY: I was surprised how little attention those arguing the Second Amendment's intent paid to The Origin of the Second Amendment, with a clear exception for Dave Kopel, who has reviewed it four different times and used it extensively in one of his articles. I was also surprised that ORIGIN did not bring a relatively quick end to the Second Amendment intent dispute, which is probably because everyone largely ignored it.
Unlikely source: I noticed an almost exact analog of the Second Amendment engraved across the front of Angell Hall at the University of Michigan many years ago on a used bookstore hunting trip. It took a number of years before I discovered that the analog sentence came from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. [In the Heller case respondent's brief, it is pointed out that the Northwest Ordinance containing the analog was reauthorized by Congress the same year it passed the Bill of Rights amendments].
Preconceptions: Well, like everyone else, I have my own little theories about why certain things happened based on the available historical facts. My first theory about why there is Virginia and Pennsylvania style state bill of rights language combined in the Second Amendment was wrong. After obtaining all the historical facts, it became apparent that my original idea was not tenable. This situation is the very reason why I quit writing short articles after the 1970's and pursued collecting all of the Constitutional Era sources before writing anything else. It is also the reason why I have studied the sources an additional sixteen years before writing my new book, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Much of the material that has appeared in law review articles over the decades has consisted of little theories based on partial facts that are not consistent with all of the historical facts.
DC: Tell me about the “Bear” book. And while you’re at it, and understanding that there are many behaviors people can follow to minimize dangerous encounters, if you were attacked by an aggressive bear, what would you prefer as your ultimate backup: pepper spray or a firearm with adequate stopping power?
DY: True Bear Tales is a collection of anecdotal black bear stories, mostly from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, that were collected during my career at Fort Wilkins and Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Parks. The Porkies was black bear problems central in the Upper Peninsula in the past. My stories are presented as humorous incidents (with a few appropriate exceptions) so that those interested can understand what the bears are usually doing as well as what they are capable of doing. True Bear Tales, which is sold mostly to tourists in the Copper Country region of Michigan, is the funding source for publication of my Second Amendment research. Without the bear book, the Second Amendment related books might not exist.
As for the hypothetical bear encounter question, the ultimate backup is a firearm. Note, however, that bear spray is very, very effective when properly used.
DC: I’ve told WarOnGuns readers before that the most dog-eared book on my shelf is “The Origin of the Second Amendment.” Give us the Cliffs Notes version of what it’s about. How many years in the making was it, from concept to publication? And here’s kind of a nosy follow-up, but as one who appreciates what you’ve given us, I’d like to know if we almost didn’t get it: Were you ever tempted to give up along the way?
DY: Origin of the Second Amendment is a complete document collection relating to the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights covering the period from 1787, when the Constitution was written, until 1792, when notification of the Bill of Rights' ratification was announced. ORIGIN contains relevant material literally transcribed from newspaper articles, editorials, broadsides, pamphlets, speeches, proceedings, and amendment proposals that directly or indirectly relate to the Second Amendment and its adoption as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. It was first published in 1991 and took twenty years of collecting documents to produce. It took about two years to type in all the material. The documents are presented without editorial comment as to their meaning or significance. The second edition has just short of 800 pages of documents, which includes approximately 450 separate sources, and runs about 900 pages total. It is a research tool for Second Amendment buffs. I decided in the mid-1980's to publish all of the documents as the dispute over Second Amendment intent continued unabated.
I was never tempted to give up along the way, first, because the historical materials I uncovered always reinforced the rights protecting nature of the Second Amendment, and second, because the anti-rights "scholars" just kept spinning and explaining away our history and culture as if they never existed and were completely unimportant.
DC: Was Emerson your first “big break” in terms of being cited in a court case? How did your work influence the 5th Circuit ruling?
DY: Yes, the 2001 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Emerson was the first time ORIGIN was cited by a court. In fact, that was also the first case in which ORIGIN was cited to a court. Thus, for the first time, judges had all of the Constitutional Era documents relating to the Second Amendment easily available to base a decision on. The court's justices used ORIGIN to verify the accuracy of the competing arguments being presented to them about the Second Amendment's intent and also to document their decision with over a hundred citations.
I have examined the Emerson decision very carefully because of the large number of cites to ORIGIN. Probably two of the justices and at least one court clerk actually read The Origin of the Second Amendment in order to come up with the decision and its particular layout. The Appendix to the Emerson decision is based upon ORIGIN but not solely upon the documents cited from it. The organization of the Appendix is clearly based on a series of period arguments presented in the Introduction to The Origin of the Second Amendment. I do not claim that ORIGIN won the case because there was lots of material from other pro-rights scholars presented in a number of amicus briefs in that case. Only the Second Amendment Foundation cited ORIGIN, however.
DC: Your work is also cited in Heller? By whom, and how did they use it?
DY: Both The Origin of the Second Amendment and my new definitive history, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, have been cited extensively in the Heller case.
ORIGIN was cited a total of thirty-eight times in six briefs supporting Heller, including the respondent's merits brief by Alan Gura, and amicus briefs from Academics for the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America, State Firearms Associations, Retired Military Officers, and the Paragon Foundation, as well as in two briefs supporting DC. One of the latter cited ORIGIN twenty-eight times along with numerous other period sources in an attempt to snow the justices, event though some of their cited documents directly contradict their own argument and none of them actually support it.
The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms, which was just published a few weeks after the Supreme Court consented to review the Heller case, has been cited a total of seventeen times in various pro-Heller briefs, including Alan Gura's respondent's merits brief and amicus briefs from Gun Owners of America, the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro-tem, and Academics for the Second Amendment. Both books were used largely to document various historical facts. It is also the case that some other points in the respondent's brief were based upon information presented in The Founders' View and cited to the original period documents, which I provided upon request.
DC: Tell us about your newest book, “The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms.” How does it tie in with “Origin”? How does it diverge?
DY: The Founders View is a concise history. In other words, it is my straightforward story about the relevant history, not a document collection like ORIGIN. The Founders' View traces only the most relevant American characters, comments, actions, and resolutions that resulted in development and adoption of the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. My new book relies on ORIGIN as its main document source for the Constitutional Era. ORIGIN intentionally included all Constitutional Era sources, whereas, The Founders' View covers only the most relevant information by design in an effort to cut through all the decades of politicized spin and get to the heart of the matter in a concise manner.
DC: Where do your sales come from? The Internet? Your site? Online vendors like Amazon? Brick-and-mortar chains? College bookstores? And what can readers do to help raise awareness, get stores to carry them and libraries to order them?
DY: Most sales in recent years came from Amazon. The Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America have sold ORIGIN in the past and both will probably sell the Founders' View, although, at present, only Gun Owners of America has it listed on the book sales page. The only "bookstore" to carry ORIGIN was that located as part of Guncraft Sports in Knoxville, TN. The vast majority of those who obtained ORIGIN were actually individuals who are died-in-the-wool Second Amendment types, just like you, David. Often, they are so fed up with all the wrangling in the law reviews about the Second Amendment's intent that they decided to actually take a look at the documents and see all the historical facts for themselves.
Awareness is the big problem. Other than a few of the brief writers in the Heller case and those who have actually read those briefs, practically no one is aware that the new book, The Founders' View, exists, or that it actually contains a considerable number of new and essential facts for understanding the development and purpose of the Second Amendment. Libraries are always happy to hear from people regarding the books they would like the library to obtain. All one has to do is ask. Bookstores are not ever likely to carry either of these books because they are set up to handle commercially published books. Readers can help raise awareness by informing their friends who are interested in the Second Amendment about my books' existence, just as you are doing with this interview.
DC: So what is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Insurrection? A National Guard? Hunting? Self defense?
DY: The goal of the Second Amendment is to secure the free state the people have authorized against possible future tyranny. This requires that the militia, the able-bodied males, be capable of effective self-embodying defensive action, something which is dependent on them having access to their own arms and knowledge of their use. The only way to assure this against misconstruction and abuse of the government's powers is to protect the right of individuals to have and use arms for any legitimate purposes. The overriding concern is mutual defense against government tyranny, which is entirely dependent upon each individual having the right and ability to defend himself so he can associate with others for defense of the community if ever necessary. Hunting and target shooting, etc., are clearly beneficial aspects of this right, and since they involve having and using arms, are protected. I have emphasized the developmental historical examples relating to these points in The Founders' View.
DC: Here’s an unfair question. Look into your crystal ball and give us the likely outcome of Heller. Do you think SCOTUS will rule it an individual right with a lower standard than strict scrutiny, and if so, what’s the next best challenge or strategy to proceed?
DY: This IS entirely out of my area of expertise, so here is my guess. I think it likely that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will be 7-0, maybe even a 9-0, that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. The justices will not want to write an opinion that is directly contradicted by overwhelming historical evidence. Any split will be over the level of scrutiny. The minority, if any, will want a low level of scrutiny so most laws, including DC's complete handgun ban, will be considered reasonable and constitutional. I think the majority will rule that the Second Amendment, like the first, protects fundamental rights. My research, which has been set directly before the Court in several different briefs, certainly backs up a fundamental right of the highest order. None of our rights would ever have been protected in any of the original American bills of rights if Americans had not been armed and able to protect those rights against the British. The British claimed a right to "bind Americans in all cases whatsoever," and they attempted to enforce their right with arms.
However, the Court has a simple means to avoid making this type of ruling if it so desires. It can simply affirm the lower court ruling in Parker, leaving all other issues to future cases. Because the historical sources are so clear and voluminous, and also because The Founders' View makes the development of the Second Amendment so easily understood by presenting the rest of the history not previously known, I have great hopes that the Court will make a historic ruling by addressing the clear history in this case. If there is any delay in promulgation of the decision, I predict just as I did for the Emerson case that the justices are actually reading the period sources. That would be a very good sign because the result will be another blockbuster individual rights ruling like Emerson, but actually overturning an unconstitutional law in this case.
DC: I’ve had a bone to pick with some of the leading 2A academics for some time. Some have deemed registration not to be an infringement on RKBA because of the requirement for militia members to muster with specified armaments and accoutrements, which would then be logged into the rolls. My argument is that ensuring an adequately equipped fielded force is one thing—but it’s not the same as making citizens register everything back at home they did not bring with them, nor did it require those not in service to provide such information—and likewise, private sales/bartering between individuals were commonly just that, with no record or trail. Thoughts?
DY: Gun control advocates refer to the period requirement under militia laws of showing up at militia muster with a specific type of firearm, or the very rare provision which provided for unannounced visits by officers to men's homes for the purpose of verifying their possession of the required type of firearm, as registration. Such period requirements were far different than the registration that anti-rights types want imposed by government today. Many people would happily comply with a government provision requiring them to possess the current issue military rifle, and even a requirement that militia officers could show up unannounced and demand that a man actually get his firearm out of the house and show it to them. But that is far, far from what gun control advocates are after, isn't it? Don't hold your breath for them to push adoption of true militia laws anytime soon.
The specific action underpinning Americans' modern distrust of gun control advocate inspired registration was the disarming of Bostonians after the Battles of Lexington and Concord. What started out as an agreement to turn in arms so people who desired to could depart from town with all of their other possessions soon unilaterally morphed on the part of the British into a decree that all were enemies of the King who possessed any. Anyone found afterwards with hidden arms in their house was put into prison for 75 days. It is interesting how those who have a monopoly or massive overplus of force have a habit of making everyone else do what they want, by force if necessary. There is no reason why the government needs a list of all firearms and owners other than to make it easy to seize such arms, an action giving those in control of the government a monopoly of force never intended, in fact, protected against under our Constitution. Registration of firearms and owners is not much different than registration of Jews or any other religion or sect. Why register those who exercise their rights?
DC: I’ve reported that you’ll be attending NRA’s upcoming 2008 Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY. When is that, what will you be doing there, and how can people meet you in person?
DY: Yes, I will be at the Second Amendment Films booth (number 1551) on all three days of the Show at the NRA Exhibits Hall. The Show days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, May 16, 17, and 18. I will be answering questions, discussing points of interest to attendees, and promoting not only my own books, The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, but also David Hardy's Documentary, In Search of the Second Amendment. David Hardy will also be present at the booth on Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th, but he will be at the Firearms Law Seminar all day Friday. We are calling this unique event for an NRA Show "Hardy and Young giving 'em Heller". Second Amendment Films will be selling copies of my books and David Hardy's DVD Documentary at booth 1551 during the Show hours.
To meet me, all one need do is stop by booth 1551. It is located about four booths from the back of the Exhibits Hall in the 1500's isle, which runs approximately in the middle of the Hall from front to back. Note, however, that It is not a through aisle. Sometimes people miss booths using the standard up and down each isle method to make sure and see everything. Most of the isles are not through isles at this year's show due to large displays by major manufacturers. Anyone who is interested should stop by and have a chat. It ought to be most interesting, especially now that the Heller case is before the Supreme Court. I can imagine a lot of friendly animated discussion.
DC: Any thoughts you’d like to share with WarOnGuns visitors before we open the floor for questions?
DY: I specialize in study of the Constitutional Era and, to a lesser extent, the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras. Remember that my area of expertise is the development and adoption of the Second Amendment ending with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson's announcement regarding ratification of the Bill of Rights amendments on March 1, 1792. Historical questions about anything after that date are simply requests for my personal opinion based on my best guess. Ask away!
----------------
Thank you, David E. Young. This has already been a real education as well as a pleasure, and I can't wait to see what else we're going to learn here today.
Now comes the time when I promised I'd turn the questioning over to WarOnGuns visitors. Before I do, I'd like to set the ground rules to keep everything on track.
Please look at the questions I asked and the questions posed by others so we're not covering the same ground twice, and please heed the caveat about Mr. Young's area of expertise. Please limit your questions and give everyone a chance.
And of course, off-topic posts, spam and obscenities will be deleted without comment.
Finally, and this is important: Please ask him concise questions. We're here to hear him out, not post essays or engage other question posters in debate. Look at my questions as a general guide to requested length. If, based on my judgment I think it appropriate, I'll just hit "delete" and you can take it up with me by email [dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom].
Sorry if this seems rule-heavy, but I've learned I need to do this from past interviews to keep things running smoothly. If we keep things on track and just observe a few simple courtesies, we all ought to learn from this and have a good time.
One last note--I disabled CAPTCHA word verification on comment posts for the duration of this interview.
The floor is now open for questions.
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED
Past WarOnGuns Interviews:
Matthew Bracken
David Hardy
Ryan Horsley
Clayton Cramer
