Guns Part 1: The Sudden Celebrity of Sir John Knight

SPEAKER_20: Pushkin. SPEAKER_18: The one thing we can never get more of is time. Or can we? This is Watson X Orchestrate. AI designed to multiply productivity by automating tasks. When you Watson X your business, you can build digital skills to help human resources spend less time generating offer letters, writing job recs and managing schedules, and spend more time on humans. Let's create more time for your business with Watson X Orchestrate. Learn more at ibm.com slash orchestrate. IBM. Let's create. SPEAKER_20: Malcolm Gladwell here. Let's re-examine employee benefits. With the Hartford Insurance Group benefits insurance, you'll get it right the first time. Keep your business competitive by looking out for your employees needs with quality benefits from the Hartford. The Hartford Group benefits team makes managing benefits and absences a breeze while providing their employees with a streamlined world-class customer experience that treats them like people, not policies. Keep your workforce moving forward with group benefits from the Hartford. The Bucks got you back. Learn more at the Hartford dot com slash benefits. SPEAKER_02: From Pushkin Industries and Ruby Studio at iHeartMedia, Incubation is a new show about humanity's struggle against the world's tiniest villains, viruses. I'm Jacob Goldstein, and on this show, you'll hear how viruses attack us, how we fight back, and what we've learned in the course of those fights. Listen to Incubation on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. SPEAKER_20: Over the next stretch of revisionist history, we have a special treat for you. Six episodes, all devoted to one theme, an examination of the many weird and strange corners of the American obsession with guns. It's about what we don't know, what we get wrong, how we screwed up, and how utterly bizarre things get in a country where guns stand at the center of our culture. Our journey begins in 17th century England with a mysterious merchant named John Knight, who inexplicably has become a 21st century legal celebrity. Then on to the New York City subways, the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, a little town in rural Alabama, the south side of Chicago, and the wild, wild west. Dodge City, to be exact. I'll show you what it means to get out of Dodge. We'll consider a what if involving the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I'll shoot assault rifles in a range in the woods of North Carolina and sit in the basement of the University of Chicago Hospital as an ER doc pours out his heart to me. Now, as you may already know, you can hear this entire series starting right now by becoming a Pushkin Plus subscriber. You can subscribe on Apple podcasts or on our website, pushkin.fm, slash plus, or hear the episodes weekly right here in the Revisionist History feed. We'd also love to hear from you as you listen. You can write into our contact form at revisionisthistory.com. All right, here we go. It's 1686 in Bristol, a major port and manufacturing center on the southwest coast of England. A local merchant named John Knight, Sir John Knight, is riding up a steep road outside the city to an Anglican church, St. Michael's on the Hill. Greystone, slate roof, sturdy walls, built during medieval times to withstand the full brunt of hostile force. The city of Bristol spread out below. Sir John Knight bursts in and then, oh my God. SPEAKER_08: John Knight! SPEAKER_20: My name is Malcolm Gladwell. You're listening to Revisionist History, my podcast about things overlooked and misunderstood. In this episode, I invite you to descend with me into the deep and bottomless historical pit that is Sir John Knight, the irrepressible Englishman who has achieved more than three centuries after his death, a sudden and extraordinary celebrity. How was it that the John Knight case came to such prominence? Who uncovered it? It doesn't sound like this wasn't a case that was in, there wasn't a famous case in England at the time. No, I don't, I hate to say it's like, you know, if you talk about history, like, you SPEAKER_03: know, you can go to Africa and find a rock with somebody's name on it. This is founded by a white guy in 1918. No, it was existent, right? It was there. It's always been there. SPEAKER_20: So I wanted to explain how that happened and why he matters. And I know that this is something you've thought about. So I naturally wanted to call you. First question, settle for me, who is the first modern legal scholar to reference Sir John Knight? It depends on what you mean by modern. SPEAKER_05: William Hawkins in his 1716 treatise. SPEAKER_20: I mean last 50 years, his most recent celebrity. SPEAKER_05: Well, I mean, he was around in case law, you know, not as common as he's been in the 21st century. But he was always around in case law to some degree, you know, shows up in a major 1843 case in North Carolina, and then another 1968 North Carolina case, among others. SPEAKER_20: So yeah, thank you. I, you know, I was, I got really interested in the way the Second Amendment debate has been transformed. And in this sort of focus on history, and I got, the reason I got into it is I got really fascinated by the Sir John Knight case. Oh, yes, right. SPEAKER_20: And everyone says, oh, the person you have to talk to is Joyce Malcolm. So here I am. And here you are. And here I am. When you were doing your book, your original work on this, how did you come across the Sir John Knight case? Ah, well, it was a long time ago now. SPEAKER_20: John Knight's name is spoken first only in the smallest of historical circles. Then it gets repeated again and again, with increasing frequency in bigger and bigger rooms. SPEAKER_06: I was at a conference in DC where they were discussing Second Amendment issues, and they had people giving papers from all perspectives. And I was just there to offer some historical input. I found myself having to clarify some of the basic details. Misassertions had been made about what had actually happened. So I said I happen to know about this because I read a lot of the sources. SPEAKER_20: Do we know what Sir John looked like? His family life? His personal circumstances? Not really. But we do know something of his character, principled to a fault, contentious, possessed of a steadfastness of mind and deed. So he was a Bristol merchant. SPEAKER_07: He was from quite an important Bristol mercantile family. And perhaps because his father had been a sugar maker, Sir John Knight appears to have gone out to the West Indies and spent a period of time there, apparently rather controversially, because when he then applied a couple of years before, we're dealing with, to be the governor of the Leeward Islands, he appears to have been vetoed by the people there, saying that from their experience of him, he was the last person that they wanted to come out as the governor. And it may have been partly his resentment at that throwback, people have suggested, may have been one reason why he turned against the government of James II, which up until that point, he had been very strongly supporting. So he appears to have been a man of a short tempera, much disliked by many other people and highly manipulative. SPEAKER_20: But do we need to make friends of our heroes? No, we don't. What we demand of our heroes is that they serve some larger cause, that they stand for something, that their name would be uttered with reverence on some grand stage. SPEAKER_09: I know you've had a substantial debate with your friends on the other side about the statute of Northampton. Do you know who that is? SPEAKER_20: Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice, during oral arguments in November of 2021, posing a question to the legendary appellate lawyer, Paul Clement. SPEAKER_09: We haven't heard about that today, and I just wanted to give you a chance. SPEAKER_19: Thank you, Justice Gorsuch. I'd say just a couple of quick things about the statute of Northampton. SPEAKER_20: Wait for it. SPEAKER_19: Wait for it. First of all, I think that it was very clear from the Knight's case and the treatises that this court relied on in Heller that by the time of the framing of the case... SPEAKER_20: The Knight's case. John Knight. SPEAKER_20: This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. A couple of years ago, my best friend Jacob came to me and said, do you want to start an audio company to make podcasts and audio books? It was a huge decision. I'm awfully late in my career to start something from scratch. I thought long and hard about it, lost some sleep, but you know what I should have done? I should have talked to someone about the decision. Whatever that decision is, therapy can help you map out your future and trust yourself to find the best way forward. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists anytime for no additional charge. Let therapy be your map with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com slash Gladwell today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com slash Gladwell. SPEAKER_18: AI has the power to automate, but if it's using untrusted data, can you trust the results? Your business doesn't just need AI, it needs the right AI for your business. Introducing Watson X, a platform designed to multiply output by tailoring AI to your needs. When you Watson X your business, you can train, tune, and deploy AI all with your trusted data. Let's create the right AI for your business with Watson X. Learn more at ibm.com slash watsonx. IBM. Let's create. SPEAKER_20: Do you know that right now, as you listen to this, there's an astronaut named Frank Rubio in some tiny spacecraft way, way up there in space. He left for the International Space Station in September of last year, thought he was going for six months. And then once he was up there, NASA called him up and said, actually, Frank, we want you out there for a year, 371 days to be exact. My question is, if you're NASA and you pull that bait and switch once, how do you recruit the next crop of astronauts? I mean, you say to your recruits, I need you to leave your family and friends and everything you know and love dearly, eat food out of a tube, but only for six months. And they're like, wait, look at Frank. That's what you told him. And he's still up there. Recruiting for astronauts, if you're NASA, is hard. If only there was some sophisticated job recruiting site capable of finding those few Americans who are perfectly happy to float around in space for an undetermined length of time. Sadly, for NASA, there's no such tool. But for the rest of us, oh yes, there is. ZipRecruiter, new hires cost an average $4,700 for all of us non-spaceflight companies. And with that kind of money at stake, you have to get it right. So what's the most effective way to find the right people for your roles? ZipRecruiter, see for yourself. Right now you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Gladwell and experience the value ZipRecruiter brings to hiring. Once you post your job, ZipRecruiter's smart technology works quickly to identify people whose skills and experience line up with exactly what you want. It's simple. ZipRecruiter helps you get hiring right. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. See for yourself. Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for free before you commit. ZipRecruiter.com slash Gladwell. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash G-L-A-D-W-E-L-L. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. Somewhere out there, believe it or not, there's someone who wants Frank Rubio's job. SPEAKER_20: When the final accounting is done of the 21st century, a handful of Supreme Court cases will stand out as landmarks. The Citizens United case from 2010, for example, which freed corporations to spend enormous amounts of money on political candidates. The decision to overturn abortion rights. Very high on that list. A pivotal gun rights case that came before the court in late 2021. SPEAKER_15: We will hear argument this morning in case 2843, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. SPEAKER_20: New York Rifle and Pistol, otherwise known as the Bruin case. Bruin was about the Second Amendment to the Constitution, 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 does that sentence mean? For years and years, scholars have argued about that. We even weighed in on it here at Revisionist History. If you remember in season three's Divide and Conquer episode with an investigation of the significance of the commas that surround the phrase being necessary to the security of a free state. But then along comes the Bruin case. For a hundred years, a law has been on the books in New York State that says you can only get a handgun if you prove you need one for some specific purpose. And the gun lovers of New York are unhappy about this. They sue. The Supreme Court agrees to take the case. And in November of 2021, lawyers for both sides gather for what is the first stage in all Supreme Court cases, oral arguments. They're in the court's central chamber on First Street across from the Capitol, an imposing room in the grand neoclassical revival style. Forty-four foot ceilings, twenty-four ionic columns and marble shipped from Liguria, Italy. The justices are sitting all in a row behind a long, curved mahogany table, there to hear the lawyers on both sides of the Bruin case present their oral arguments. The room's packed. A sense of anticipation is in the air. SPEAKER_19: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, the text of the Second Amendment enshrines a right not just to keep arms, but to bear them. And the relevant history and tradition exhaustively surveyed by this court in the Heller decision confirm that the text protects an individual right to carry firearms outside the home for purposes of self-defense. SPEAKER_20: Paul Clement, lawyer for the Gun Rights Group. SPEAKER_19: I'm happy to continue by pointing— SPEAKER_14: Mr. Clement, sorry to interrupt you. SPEAKER_20: That's Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas would go on to write the court's majority opinion in the case. This is the moment where he tips his hand, shows us where he's leaning. SPEAKER_14: If we analyze this and use history, tradition, text of the Second Amendment, we're going to have to do it by analogy. So can you give me a regulation in history that would form a basis for legitimate regulation today? If we're going to do it by analogy, what would we analogize it to? What would that look like? SPEAKER_20: If you were a law student armed with a yellow highlighter, you would underline the words history and tradition. Why? Justice Thomas is telling us something crucial here. He doesn't care about the commas in the Second Amendment. He doesn't care about the arcane theories of the legal scholars. He doesn't even care about what the citizens of New York State may or may not think about restricting handguns. He cares about what the founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment. And when he says you're going to have to do it by analogy, what he means is the only way to decide whether restriction on guns is valid, is consistent with the Second Amendment, is did the founders way back when ever consider a restriction that looks like this New York law? Would they have been okay with it? And Clement agrees. SPEAKER_14: So can you give me a regulation in history that is a basis, that would form a basis for legitimate regulation today? SPEAKER_20: Yes. That's what this case is about. We're arguing history here. SPEAKER_11: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. SPEAKER_20: Then the attorney for the other side stands up. Barbara Underwood, Solicitor General of the State of New York. SPEAKER_11: For centuries, English and American law have imposed limits on carrying firearms in public in the interest of public safety. The history runs from the 14th century Statute of Northampton, which prohibited carrying arms in fairs and markets and other public gathering places, to similar laws adopted by half of the American colonies and states in the founding period. SPEAKER_20: The Statute of Northampton. That's the third time we've heard it mentioned. In a case heard in the 21st century about a law passed in the 20th century, the court has asked for insight into how the founders felt in the 18th century. And the lawyers said, well then, we need to look to the 14th century. 1328, to be precise. Your Honor, during the reign of Edward II, the English Parliament passed the Statute of Northampton, which says that no man shall disturb the peace by riding armed night or day without, quote, forfeiting their bodies to prison at the king's pleasure. The Statute of Northampton is part of English common law. English common law is what the first English settlers brought with them on the Mayflower. English common law is what the founding fathers learned in school. You want an analogy from history? You want to play early history? I give you a crucial law from 1328, which absolutely the founders knew about, that restricts guns way more than anything we're talking about in this court, Your Honor. If court cases are chess, this is check. The only way the gun rights crowd can win is if they can find their own bit of ancient history that trumps the Statute of Northampton. SPEAKER_20: And incredibly, they do. SPEAKER_08: Yeah, yeah. SPEAKER_20: Going back to when you were doing your book, your original work on this, how did you come across the Sir John Knight case? SPEAKER_13: Ah, well, it was a long time ago now. But I looked through all of the cases and there are these little handbooks on what the law was at different times that were published to help justices of the peace and judges. I looked through the laws. I did a lot of manuscript reading and really investigating what Parliament was doing, what was happening at that time. SPEAKER_20: Joyce Malcolm, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Virginia. In a world where history matters more than law or public sentiment, historians become heroes. The Magazine National Review once described Joyce Malcolm as the nice girl who saved the Second Amendment. She quote, looks nothing like a hardened veteran of the gun control wars. Small, slender, and bookish. She's a wisp of a woman who enjoys plunging into the archives and sitting through panel discussions at academic conferences. Malcolm felt the argument over gun rights had been set adrift from history. If we didn't know what the founders thought, how would we know what we should think? In her most famous book, To Keep and Bear Arms, The Origin of an American Right, she set out to answer that question. And while pouring through case books from the 18th and 19th century, she found it. The key that unlocked the whole mystery. No more than a handful of paragraphs and a short summary, but the story it told was riveting. This 1686. England is overwhelmingly Protestant, legally and officially dominated by the Church of England. But for a brief period in the 1680s, the king was James II, who was Catholic. And Church of England loyalists were outraged by the possibility that the king might try and empower his fellow Catholics. And one of those outraged Church of England loyalists was a merchant from the coastal town of Bristol. A man named Sir John Knight. One day Knight rides up a steep road outside Bristol to the Anglican Church of St. Michael on the hill. He bursts in, the story goes, waving his guns, gives an impassioned speech. James II hears of it and has Knight arrested. Charges him under the statute of Northampton. SPEAKER_06: The information sets forth that the defendant did walk about the streets armed with guns and that he went into the Church of St. Michael in Bristol in the time of divine service with a gun to terrify the king's subjects. SPEAKER_20: And what happens? The jury decides. Not guilty. Joyce Malcolm reads this and it takes her breath away. Everyone thinks that English common law, on which the American legal tradition is based, was hostile to people walking around with guns. But that is not true. John Knight was acquitted. John Knight goes up against the statute of Northampton and John Knight wins. SPEAKER_20: One side says, the statute of Northampton. Check. The other side counters. John Knight. Checkmate. SPEAKER_13: So there's been this big debate about what the statute of Northampton meant. But I can say that if it was archaic by the 17th century, it was certainly archaic by the 18th century when we got the Second Amendment and for sure the 21st century. SPEAKER_20: The nice girl who saved the Second Amendment. And if you read through the briefs filed before the Supreme Court in Bruin, what do you find? John Knight. Everywhere. We hear about the famous case of Sir John Knight. We get history lessons on John Knight. We learn that the legal entanglement he found himself in after he burst into the church at St. Michael's on the Hill is the most quote, significant precedent quote, in understanding a crucial turn in Second Amendment law. During oral arguments, Neil Gorsuch lobs a softball at Paul Clement about the statute of Northampton. SPEAKER_09: I know you've had a substantial debate with your friends on the other side about the statute of Northampton. SPEAKER_20: And Paul Clement knocks the question out of the park. John Knight, baby! SPEAKER_08: John Knight! SPEAKER_20: Then, six months later, comes the final ruling in Bruin. Just as Clarence Thomas promised, it's all about history. Eight pages on the period between 1285 and 1776. Five pages on colonial America. Nine pages on 1791 to the Civil War. Six pages on the path to Reconstruction. One of the most important cases of our generation. A landmark that once and for all clarifies the most controversial of all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The debate is over. Now we know. Were the founders under the sway of the statute of Northampton? No, they were not. The court rules. History teaches us otherwise. The founders would have frowned on the way New York State tried to regulate handguns. And we know this because of one man's heroic acquittal. If you read the Bruin ruling, John Knight looms over it like a colossus. John Knight, John Knight, John Knight. He pops up again and again like a late 17th century whack-a-mole. I've been really drawn. In fact, this morning I was reading over again the stuff about the Rex v. Knight, the John Knight case. I called up a Second Amendment scholar named Patrick Charles. Before long, talk swung to John Knight. Of course it did. There's no quitting John Knight once you catch John Knight fever. But you know, it's a totally fascinating history taken in itself. But in context, the idea that in the middle of a contemporary debate about how to handle SPEAKER_20: the possession of dangerous weapons in America, that we're spending our time obsessing about a case from the 17th century in Bristol in England is hilarious. SPEAKER_03: Yes, on the one level you're absolutely correct. SPEAKER_20: Patrick Charles and I agreed that it was hilarious to spend so much time on John Knight. And then what did we do? We continued talking about John Knight. John Knight is the groundhog who emerges from his musty English lair every spring to cast a shadow across 21st century jurisprudence. The beaver who stealthily builds a legal edifice out of mud and sticks. The constitutional scholar and a founding member of the John Knight fan club, David Koppel, once combed through the library of an 18th century law professor named George Wythe who taught law to a Supreme Court justice, a couple of presidents, some founding fathers. And he found that John Knight's name was all over law books back then. Surely this is all the founders were talking about over a good pipe and a bottle of claret in the drawing rooms of colonial Philadelphia. You were in Bristol not long ago. SPEAKER_05: I was. My wife and I were on vacation. And as we were on our way from Cornwall to Wales, we did stop at St. Michael Church in Bristol where all this stuff happened because I wanted to see it, maybe see if Sir John Knight was buried in that graveyard. SPEAKER_20: David Koppel on vacation says to his wife, we cannot quit this storied isle without paying homage to the man whose brave example saved America from the tyranny of restrictive gun laws. SPEAKER_05: And it was interesting. It's not a huge cathedral type church. It's a medium sized church, but it's up on the hill. As I learned the hard way, because I was driving a stick shift and getting up that very steep hill was quite a challenge. SPEAKER_20: Yeah, yeah. But you're in the area and you couldn't resist to stop by. I kind of want to see St. Michael's myself. SPEAKER_05: Go ahead. Tell me why you want to see it too. SPEAKER_20: Of course I do. I mean, who wouldn't want to learn of this giant in the place of his birth and death? But then just as I was packing my bags for Bristol, I thought, wait, let me check in with a more disinterested historian of that period. I called around. Someone recommended a man named Jonathan Barry of the University of Exeter. When you, as a historian of this period, see the way that John Knight has suddenly popped up in American gun rights discourse, what's your reaction? SPEAKER_07: Well I find it bizarre because nobody in England has ever heard of him or the case. And it has no implication, as far as I know, in the English jurisprudence, not that I'm a juris, but it's of no significance. SPEAKER_20: Huh. In England, John Knight is a nobody, but in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, three and a half thousand miles away, he's a superstar. It's a puzzle. And it is for puzzles like these that God invented revisionist history. SPEAKER_01: Think about how many subscriptions you pay for. You probably pay, what, 85 bucks a month or so? That's what most people think. But stats show it's likely more than $200. Why? Because you're probably paying for subscriptions you don't even know about. That's where Rocket Money comes in. Rocket Money is the personal finance app that shows you all of the subscriptions you're paying for in one place. From there, you can cancel the ones you forgot about with just one tap. Rocket Money can even help you get a refund for some of the money you lost. No waiting on hold, no confusing websites that hide that cancel button. Just more money back in your pocket. Rocket Money can also help you make custom budgets and lower your bills. Rocket Money users report saving more than $700 a year. Yeah, you heard that right. Over $700 a year. To learn more, go to rocketmoney.com slash success or download the Rocket Money app from the Apple app or Google Play stores. SPEAKER_18: The one thing we can never get more of is time. Or can we? This is Watson X Orchestrate. AI designed to multiply productivity by automating tasks. When you Watson X your business, you can build digital skills to help human resources spend less time generating offer letters, writing job recs and managing schedules and spend more time on humans. Let's create more time for your business with Watson X Orchestrate. Learn more at ibm.com slash orchestrate IBM. Let's create from Pushkin Industries and Ruby Studio at I Heart Media. SPEAKER_02: Incubation is a new podcast about the viruses that shape our lives. It's a show about how viruses attack us and how we fight back. I'm Jacob Goldstein and on incubation, we'll hear how scientists have pioneered new techniques in the fight against viruses. SPEAKER_10: There was just something about the way the virus was shaped. It always felt like there was no hope for creating a vaccine. SPEAKER_02: Until now. Until now. We'll celebrate the victories, like the incredible story of how smallpox was wiped off the face of the earth. SPEAKER_12: Eradication means you have to get to whatever disease you're targeting everywhere, wherever it exists. SPEAKER_02: Listen to Incubation on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. SPEAKER_20: One of the problems associated with the coronation of John Knight as the savior of the gun rights movement is that our understanding of the details of his arrest and acquittal was limited. We had the verdict, but not much else. After all, it happened in 1686. It's not like there are digital records somewhere in the Bristol courthouse. What was known about the case came from legal catalogues from the 18th and 19th century, the kind that a lawyer or a judge might subscribe to that offer brief summaries, news briefings of the goings on in various courthouses around England. That's what Joyce Malcolm found in her Eureka moment, a brief write up from a long ago legal newsletter on a matter of Rex v. Knight. It was about a paragraph long, but let's be honest. One paragraph in a legal digest is not exactly the strongest of foundations for completely overturning our understanding of the second amendment. And perhaps more ominously, the newly inaugurated members of the Sir John Knight fan club tended to be lawyers and lawyers deal in black and white, hard facts, the letter of the law, tangible evidence. But now they had crossed over into the land of history and history is not like the law at all. History is a living organic thing that gets rewritten all the time. I mean, why do you think we call this podcast revisionist history? Because historians love to say, wait a minute, I found something new that makes me think we didn't quite realize what we were talking about before. And in the case of Sir John Knight, that something new was the newsletter of the intrepid Roger Morris. SPEAKER_20: Roger Morris was a journalist who wrote a private newsletter in the 1680s for a variety of well-connected clients. Roger Morris knew everyone and everything in late 17th century England. He passed on high-end gossip. He told stories no one had ever heard before about brothels and prostitutes and somebody bearing their breast to the Moroccan ambassador. He wrote about how the ice was so thick in the long cold winter of 1684 that people roasted an ox on the River Thames. He saw the king's baby and heir up close and reported, and you have to love this little bit of late medieval trolling. The child was a large full child in the head and the upper parts, but not suitably proportioned in the lower parts. Roger Morris was a goldmine. SPEAKER_20: But there were a few problems. The first was that Roger Morris's reputation did not extend beyond the late 17th century. His newsletters ended up in an obscure library in central London where no one paid attention to them for several hundred years. Second problem, Roger Morris was incredibly prolific. The Roger Morris archives extend into the millions of words, so if you wanted to find out what Roger Morris had to say about this or that, you had to make a commitment. Third, and maybe the biggest problem of all, Roger Morris's entire life work was written in code. I mean, if you're going to diss the private parts of the heir to the throne, you have to take some precautions. SPEAKER_06: There was an attempt by a historian called Douglas Lacey to try and do a starting work on a volume. SPEAKER_20: That's the historian Tim Harris. He did a book in the 1950s. SPEAKER_06: He couldn't break the shorthand, couldn't break the code, and it's too much for one person to take on. SPEAKER_20: A cryptographer from Oxford had to get involved. Teams of historians volunteered, passing the job down from one generation to the next. Until finally there it was, a full shelf of encyclopedias-sized volumes offering hitherto unknown insights into one of the most complex eras in British history. And Roger Morris, it turns out, had a lot to say about Sir John Knight. SPEAKER_06: It's a seven-volume edition, and there was a team of us who did it. And now it's widely available, and because it's widely available, people are looking at it more and say, oh, there's not more we can find out about the Sir John Knight case. It's an incredible source. It has lots of very valuable information, and it's clearly well-informed. And if you can check his information against other sources, it's clearly accurate, but he also gives you additional information, which you won't get elsewhere. SPEAKER_20: So much additional information. Oh my God. SPEAKER_07: So he was a Bristol merchant. He was from quite an important Bristol mercantile family. SPEAKER_20: Jonathan Barry, historian at the University of Exeter. The Knights ran sugar refineries. They had plantations in the Caribbean. They were politically well-connected, and their sympathies did not lie with the Catholic King of England, James II. John Knight hated Catholics. One day he learns that a group of Irish Catholics are holding a secret mass in a house in Bristol. He arranges to have the priest arrested. SPEAKER_06: So he gets the Lord Mayor and other magistrates to raid this Catholic chapel. So a couple of weeks later, there's an anti-Catholic ritual in Bristol, which the government suspects the magistrates, the Bristol, and maybe Sir John Knight, were involved in encouraging where they parade through the city, scoffing the mass. They hold a piece of bread up in the air, and they have someone dressed as a Virgin Mary and someone dressed as a monk. The monk is fondling the Virgin Mary. SPEAKER_20: The monk is fondling the Virgin Mary. SPEAKER_06: So the government is upset about this. SPEAKER_20: The King of England is a Catholic, remember? SPEAKER_06: And after that, Sir John Knight claims that he's threatened and is beaten up by a couple of Irishmen. So Sir John Knight was advised to retire to a house in the country. But because he was in fear of being beaten up, they beat him and kicked him when they attacked him. When he came into Bristol, subsequently, he came with a company of people carrying swords and muskets in front before him. But he left these at the walls of the city because you're not allowed to carry arms into the city of Bristol. Bristol had its own bylaws. SPEAKER_20: Yes, you heard that correctly. He checks his guns at the gate. Now this is worth a slight digression. We tend to forget how violent and militaristic 17th century England in general and a place SPEAKER_07: like Bristol in particular were. Jonathan Barry again. One reflection of the fact is that Bristol was a leading place for privateering, where basically you capture the ships of your rival traders, as it were, so you load yourself up. Bristol is just beginning at this period to get involved in the slave trade with Africa which, of course, both involved the use of military force, but also, as you may know, one of the chief products that you actually took there to trade with was arms. And one of the things that Bristol and places around it were producing, in fact, were lots of arms, but also they needed weapons, cannons for their ships and so on. So we have to imagine a society in which there are a lot of people that are used to using SPEAKER_20: weapons. So why would the Knight case represent some kind of turning point in British attitudes towards guns? Bristol was awash in guns, so much so that they were forced to put gun control measures in place that put anything in America today to shame. SPEAKER_07: I mean, I think it's absurd to think that the crucial issue here was about whether a man was bearing arms or not because there were lots of people wandering around bearing arms. SPEAKER_20: Anyway, back to our story with Tim Harris. SPEAKER_06: And then on one day he goes to church and he does go with his attendant and goes with a gun and sword, but he leaves these. He says he leaves these at the porch with his attendant. SPEAKER_20: The church is St. Michael's on the Hill. His church, the one overlooking Bristol. He gets off his horse, checks his weapons at the door. Isn't that enormously significant here? So here we have a case that Second Amendment types are claiming is this enormously important precedent for the right of an individual to bear arms. But the individual in question checks his arms at the door of the church. I mean, it's like, he's not waving his gun around or claiming he can wave his gun around. He quite willingly adheres to local norms about where guns should and shouldn't be carried. SPEAKER_06: Yes, that seems to be the case. SPEAKER_20: Okay. So then enters the church and he shouts out, the Catholics are trying to kill me and they're going to try and kill you too. Another quick digression. I asked Jonathan Barry about that moment. One question before we go on with the story. I wanted to go back. How Catholic was Bristol in this era? Almost non-existent. SPEAKER_07: Oh, wait. SPEAKER_20: So wait. So John Knight is going into this parish church and saying, we're all in danger of being God freed by the Catholics. One body. SPEAKER_07: And the number of Catholics in Bristol to have conducted such a plot was minuscule. SPEAKER_20: So he goes into this church and he says, he tries to kind of whip the church up into a frenzy about the Irish threat. And the government says, you've gone too far. He's implying that the Catholic king is somehow conspiring against his own people. And that's when he gets in trouble with the law. Yes. He doesn't sound very likable to John Knight. SPEAKER_07: Nobody appears to have liked Sir John Knight. SPEAKER_20: No. The government goes after John Knight because he's a jackass. He's running around conjuring up ridiculous conspiracy theories about Catholics. SPEAKER_06: So the charge, all the newsletter accounts I've read emphasize that it's the words that he spoke in the church, which and therefore this was proof of his disloyalty. That was a key issue for why they wanted to arrest him. But they decide to get him on the Statute of Northampton, which is a statute from 1328 saying it's a breach of the peace. He pleaded not guilty. He claims that he didn't take the gun or the sword into the church. He left it outside. And the church is actually just outside the walls of the city of Bristol as it was back then. It's a Protestant church, obviously. And he leaves the gun and the sword outside. And the jury said he's got a proven track record of being loyal to the government. And so they found him not guilty. SPEAKER_20: Because he didn't brandish a gun in church. The jury didn't find him disloyal because they knew he'd been loyal to the previous Protestant king. He wasn't armed, so they couldn't get him on that. He just didn't like Catholics. And so what? This is Bristol in 1686. No one in Bristol in 1686 likes Catholics. The case against him is dead on arrival. And by the way, no one knows this better than the government. SPEAKER_06: So they actually don't want to prosecute Knight. They actually want Knight to apologize and then they try and bury the case. That seems to be what's implied in the newsletter accounts I've read. That doesn't happen. They would have preferred if he'd apologized and they could have said, okay, we'll let it go. SPEAKER_20: So to recap, John Knight's episode in the Church of St. Michael has become a heroic moment to the American gun rights movement, even though John Knight wasn't actually carrying a gun when he entered the Church of St. Michael. Even though the case against him had nothing to do with guns, even though Bristol in fact had gun control ordinances that puts every gun control ordinance in America today to shame. Even though the whole brouhaha was just about him being a bigot who was terrified of a Catholic conspiracy taking over Bristol, even though there were hardly any Catholics in Bristol. And even though the whole case was dead on arrival and Knight could have apologized and made it all go away and just didn't feel like it. SPEAKER_20: But the only way you would know all this is if you were willing to wade to the seven volumes of Roger Morris's coded newsletters. And who has time for that? I was reading the, did you read, there's a historian Tim Harris wrote an essay on. I was amused to see there was a, he talks about the Sir John Knight case about how when he goes to the church, the Protestant church, to speak to what he thought was the threat being posed by the Catholics in Bristol. He insists that he checks his weapons at the front of the church. And he also says that when he goes into Bristol, he abided by the bylaws of Bristol and didn't carry his weapons into the, past the city's limits. SPEAKER_20: I wondered how Joyce Malcolm made sense of all these new facts. The Roger Morris newsletters were finally decoded more than 10 years after she wrote her opus to keep and bear arms. So I'm just curious, how do those sort of two facts fit into this story? So even if we have, if the Sir John Knight case represents some kind of affirmation of the individual right to peaceable carry, Sir John Knight himself is complying with some pretty strict gun control laws, isn't he? SPEAKER_13: I think, to be honest, that I think that Professor Harris is wrong. First of all, because there was all of these duties and requirements to protect yourself. And in the judge's opinion in the Sir John Knight case, he says that the law allows gentlemen to go about with arms, as long as they're not unusual and dangerous weapons. So the judge seems at odds with Professor Harris. SPEAKER_20: But what do you make of Sir John Knight's claim that he checked his weapons at the front of the church and didn't carry his weapons into the city of Bristol? SPEAKER_13: I find that very odd. Because if that were the case, if there was a law that he couldn't carry his weapons into the city of Bristol at all, that the whole city was what we would now call a sensitive place that no one could wear. It goes against your right to protect yourself. It goes against your right to protect yourself in your house. It goes against the judge's ruling. And to be honest, Professor Harris is British. They don't think much of the right to be armed. SPEAKER_20: The homicide rate in the United States, if you're wondering, is four and a half times higher than the United Kingdom. SPEAKER_13: When I explored that right and told my British friends about it, most of them didn't even realize they ever had had a right to be armed. There's this whole history that they haven't looked at. And I think it was because, as I said earlier, I asked an American question. We were interested in that. They weren't particularly interested in a right to be armed. And so it wasn't something that they had studied or been even very curious about until I started to write about it. SPEAKER_20: Yeah, yeah. But if the British aren't interested in a right to bear arms, then why are we drawing on British, why is British tradition relevant to the discussion of American individual men rights? SPEAKER_13: I think this was a history that was lost to them. I think modern British people have a different view of it. They're much more dependent on the state taking care of them, particularly since World War II. This is earlier British history. It's history that they really were not that familiar with. They were looking at other things. And I think that one of the, I guess, the contribution I made was that I was an American that looked at British history and English history with American questions, with the things we were interested in. SPEAKER_20: Yeah. And what of the Supreme Court? How did the highest legal body in the land in the landmark ruling of New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruin handle the fact that their hero has feet of clay? SPEAKER_04: I know I had it summarized somewhere, but let me see. This is it. Yes. SPEAKER_20: I asked Patrick Charles to read me the relevant section. SPEAKER_04: To the extent that there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight's case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment's command. Which, in other words, there's a whole long list of ways we can make sense of this. SPEAKER_20: We're going to pick the one we like the most. Okay. SPEAKER_03: Which one's that? SPEAKER_20: That's the one that makes our life easiest in arguing the case we've already decided we want to argue. It's like history is cherry picking. SPEAKER_03: Oh, it's so cherry picked. SPEAKER_20: The Supreme Court decides to clear up the ambiguity over the Second Amendment. Let us leave the verdict to history, they declare. But then their hero turns out to have feet of clay, so they shrug and go on with the things that they had already made up their mind to do before they tried to convince us that they wanted to play historian. And go to England and make their pilgrimage to St. Michael on the Hill and pretend that the man who they have chosen to symbolize the grand tradition of American gun rights is something other than a jackass. And after far too many hours reconstructing the history of this jackass, I realized that I had fallen into the same trap that we've all fallen into in this country when it comes to gun violence. SPEAKER_20: We're talking about the wrong things, telling irrelevant stories. And over the course of the next five episodes of Revisionist History, I want to try and change that conversation. I'm going to take you to North Carolina to shoot guns, visit an old man in Alabama with a crazy story to tell, revisit the assassination of Robert Kennedy, on and on. But no more John Knight. I promise. We've all had it with John Knight. SPEAKER_11: What kind of person was he? SPEAKER_06: Not the sort of person I want to have a drink with. He was a nasty piece of work, really. He was vindictive and spiteful. He's a bigot. He's a troublemaker. He's obviously deliberately going out to try and provoke trouble in April 1686 when he gets his priest arrested because he's stirring things up. So yeah, not a nice piece of work. That's my basic view of him. He's involved in the slave trade, he's a sugar refiner. I would hardly see that he was the sort of hero figure that champions of American liberty would want to celebrate, although maybe that's not the point. SPEAKER_08: Our revisionist history gun series was produced by Jacob Smith, Ben-Daddaf Haffrey, Kiara SPEAKER_20: Powell, Tali Emlen, and Lee Mingistu. We were edited by Peter Clowney and Julia Barton, fact checking by Arthur Gompertz and Cashel Williams. Original scoring by Luis Guerra with vocals in this episode by the magnificent Ethan Hirschfeld. Mastering by Flon Williams. Engineering by Nina Lawrence. I'm Malcolm Gladwell. Malcolm Gladwell here. Let's re-examine employee benefits. With the Hartford Insurance Group Benefits Insurance, you'll get it right the first time. Keep your business competitive by looking out for your employees' needs with quality benefits from the Hartford. The Hartford Group Benefits team makes managing benefits and absences a breeze while providing your employees with a streamlined, world-class customer experience that treats them like people, not policies. Keep your workforce moving forward with group benefits from the Hartford. The Bucks got your back. Learn more at theheartford.com slash benefits. SPEAKER_00: This year, Hyundai features their all-electric Hyundai IONIQ lineup as a proud sponsor of the iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas with two high-tech models. The IONIQ 5 can take you an EPA-estimated 303 miles on a single charge and has available two-way charging for electronic equipment inside and outside the car. The IONIQ 6 boasts a mind-blowing range of up to 360 miles and can deliver up to an 80% charge in just 18 minutes with its 800-volt DC ultra-fast charger. Check out Hyundai at the iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas as their all-star IONIQ lineup hits the stage like you've never seen before. Hyundai, it's your journey. SPEAKER_17: CuriosityStream is the streaming service for people who want to know more. And now check out Curiosity's new series, Queens of Ancient Egypt. When pharaohs held the throne, their wives held the power. We see her taking precedence over the pharaoh, an absolute mastermind. SPEAKER_17: All hail the queens. This is unprecedented. Watch Queens of Ancient Egypt now on CuriosityStream. With monthly annual and bundled plans, find the one that works for you at curiositystream.com. SPEAKER_10: All-inclusive beach vacay. If you want to visit the beach in the fall, winter, or spring, it's never too early or late to start planning, which is why we're offering up to $150 off your booking of four nights or more. Just use code SAVINGBIG150 at checkout to unlock your exclusive offer at cheapcaribbean.com. Semi-annual sale ends October 3rd. See you at the beach. SPEAKER_16: Do you hear it? The clock is ticking. It's time for the new season of 60 Minutes. The CBS News Sunday Night tradition is back for its 56th season with all-new big-name interviews, hard-hitting investigations, and epic adventures. No place. No one. No story is off-limits. And you'll always learn something new. It's time for 60 Minutes. New episode airs Sunday, September 24th on CBS and streaming on Paramount+.