(The following is Part 2 of a three-part interview with Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America.)

TNA: Let’s talk a little bit about concealed carry. How many states allow it and do you see a potential for the federal government to try and outlaw the right to keep a concealed weapon?

Pratt: There’s probably some thirty-seven states now that have what we call in the Second Amendment community “shall issue” laws, meaning if you have submitted to the background check, which we don’t think you should have to do, and neither does the state of Vermont or the state of Alaska.

There you just get a gun, put it in your purse or put it in your pocket, and you’re good to go. No questions asked, no permissions from the government.

Article Continues Below↓

In the case of these other states, you have systems set up where if you’re not found to have a criminal record, then they must give you a permit. It’s not a question any longer as it was in most of these states prior, whether or not some police officer, some judge, some clerk thinks you might need a gun, and you might have a valid reason for carrying it. The assumption now is if you want to carry a gun for self defense and you happen to work in an office where it doesn’t have, well, it’s not out on the streets in a drug neighborhood or something, so what? It’s not the government’s business. They’ve got to give you the permit and you’ve got to be allowed to carry.

What we’re finding is that, especially in the number of laws that were most recently enacted, governors — one was infamous, and that was governor Taft who himself was a criminal and he was convicted of graft and yet he had the audacity while as governor after those convictions, which didn’t put him in jail, unhappily, so he stayed as governor — he was able to tell the legislature, “nope, I’m going to keep raising the bar and make it more and more difficult for the law to pass for the law to make any difference whether you could carry it anywhere outside maybe in the middle of the street, while you’re out in public.” So the law in Ohio is much more restrictive than some of the other laws that were passed earlier say in the state of Virginia, or that had been on the books even before the modern movement in New Hampshire and places like that.

But all in all, I would say that we’ve seen progress. People have been encouraged to carry guns to protect themselves when the laws were changed to make it easier for them to do so legally. That’s in turn built a political base of people who understand and support pro-Second Amendment legislation.

TNA: Incidents recently where somebody who had a gun, concealed carry, was able to stop somebody from killing others — would you comment on that?

Pratt: Just before you and I began this conversation, I read of a man in Houston, a day or two ago, who had been assaulted by three robbers. The man pulled out his own gun, killed one, and the other two are now in captivity. This man could well not only have lost his money but with three assailants against one, there was a good possibility he could have been hurt and killed. This happens fairly frequently.

One of the things that we should point out is that we hear an argument every time that concealed carry is introduced in a state or is being considered for loosening up the laws to make it easier for people to carry in more places, we’re always warned with alarmist rhetoric that guns and people, guns and students, guns and schools, guns and churches, guns and whatever — fill in the blank — are so dangerous and this is going to lead to road rage, it’s going to lead to turning these places red with blood flowing from irresponsible activity; it never happens.

In fact, what we find out is the people who have concealed carry permit are the ones who commit the fewest crimes of any group in the population, and that includes police or ministers, for that matter. These are the good guys of America — and gals — that have these permits.

We should be encouraging them to be carrying in churches so that they can respond the way the volunteer security detail of the church members in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs were able to respond and stop a killer, literally dead in his tracks, before he was able to kill what, if we judged by the ammunition he was carrying, would have been hundreds of people. People who can defend themselves can do things like that when they are there.

Keeping a law that says “no guns,” well, that’s fine. Peaceful citizens generally obey those laws even when they’re stupid and deadly, but criminals seem too look at them as opportunity zones, where they are going to be safe. We have been working to encourage legislatures to back off of these “no-gun zones” because they are simply “criminal safe zones.”

TNA: Let’s shift gears a little bit here. Let’s talk about the United Nations. I’m told that if you become a non-governmental organization registered with the United Nations you are required not to oppose the United Nations. I would guess that Gun Owners of America has not asked for or gotten any NGO status. How about commenting on the NRA doing something like that?

Pratt: Gun Owners of America has not chosen to go the non-governmental organization route to be recognized by the United Nations because the United Nations does require one to subscribe to the goals of the United Nations. The goals of the United Nations are obnoxious. The goals of the United Nations are antithetical to individual freedom; they’re antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.

And I can understand why the NRA would want to go through that process, because they understand that there is a lot of gun control being promoted at the United Nations, treaties, and other foreign-entangling devices. They’ve decided they want to be there to fight that. I think the best way for us to fight it, frankly, is to lobby, which we’ve done, to turn off the money that goes to the UN.

If we turn that money off, again, bureaucrats don’t volunteer. They’re not going to be trying to take our guns away if 25 percent of their budget all of a sudden drops through the floor.

TNA: You’ve been attacked because you have on more than one occasion spoken to groups who are considered to be white supremacists. Comment on that if you would?

Pratt: I’ve spoken to crowds where there were white supremacists, I’ve also been to meetings and press conferences with the ACLU, who support all kinds of social issues that I strongly disagree with. Working with other people and seeking their support for your goals, no more means that you end up agreeing with their overall program than it does if you go into a garage that you’ve all of a sudden become a car. I’m simply there to get their support for the very public agenda of the Gun Owners of America.

If they’re willing to work with us on that agenda, their post card is going to count the same as somebody else’s post card that might be an ACLU member, sending in — there is an occasional ACLU pro-gun person, usually in states like Idaho and Wyoming and so forth. Those post cards all count when they come into Congress and that’s what we’re trying to do, is maximize the impact that gun owners have before Congress.

TNA: Same argument if you were speaking to an English-first group, that you would be looked upon as somebody who is anti-immigration. But that’s not your issue…

Pratt: I did set up an organization called English First, and one of the reasons I did it is because I speak fluent Spanish. My wife is foreign-born and we speak Spanish at home, and I’ve organized an Hispanic church within our Anglo congregation.

So, if you come into our church on Sunday morning, there will be a Chinese sermon being preached, at 11 o’clock, same hour, there will be a Spanish-language sermon and one in English. I don’t think I’m dressed properly to be the poster boy for racism.

TNA: What percentage of the Congressmen, 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, what percentage would you say are on our side, or on your side?

Pratt: When you ask about somebody in the Congress or any legislative body being on our side, I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by “is” is. People that are on your side who fill out questionnaires and who in conversation tell you “I’m opposed to this,” or “I support that,” that’s comforting, that’s nice to know, and I think typically, particularly in writing, they are probably speaking truthfully, but they get wobbly when they get into a legislative arena.

As one of our guys said recently, in the Senate the rules are very favorable for being able to obstruct bad legislation and keep it from happening, but we don’t really have any senators there that consistently are willing to use those rules. In the House of Representatives we have a number of men and women who are willing to try and obstruct bad legislation but the rules are much less favorable. And so one of the things that would be nice would be to get some people that are willing — we need a coalition of the willing if you will in the United States Senate — so we could try and make some things happen there.

TNA: But you don’t want to put a percentage on it?

Pratt: If you define “on our side” as being willing to go to the mat and fight, we don’t have anybody consistently in the Senate. In the House of Representatives we probably have ten or twenty.

TNA: That’s small.

Pratt: Well one need not be too concerned about the minority numbers because God certainly has not used majorities throughout history. If you read history you realize that minorities are the ones that make things happen, for good or for ill. And, one senator could tie up the whole body if he were ornery enough to do it, using the rules.

Even in the House it can be done if there are enough there — probably 40 would be a very comfortable number to fight a rearguard action using the rules of the House that would almost have the same effect as a filibuster would in the Senate. That would get the leadership’s attention. “Okay, okay, what is it going to take to get you off our case?” That’s when concessions coming our way can be made.

TNA: Do you have success in converting anti-gun activists? I’ve seen where people who were anti- the position that I hold, who could be persuaded out of it, were very valuable allies. I’m wondering if you’ve had any success with anti-gun activists becoming strong supporters of your group.

Pratt: We haven’t seen anti-gun activists converting the way you’ve seen it in say the pro-life arena. We’ve seen people change their view. There’s a saying that a liberal who’s been mugged is now a conservative. That he’s changed his view on guns at least. But that doesn’t mean necessarily that he was an activist.

And I look at the numerous opportunities we have on television and radio to present our views to the American people as not likely to convert my sparring partner who’s usually opposed to me on these debate formats, but I do think it gives us an opportunity to present information to the American people that is otherwise filtered by the media. In that regard, we have seen since 1980 surveys were saying that perhaps as much as 80 percent of the people, if you just ask them — it’s kind of a silly question because they don’t know how much already there is — “Do you think there should be more gun control?”, back in 1980, 80 percent of the people tended to say “Yeah.”

Now, when you ask that same silly question, it’s down to about 51 percent and almost all of the other are opposed to that. Some of that 47- 49 percent would actually like to see rollback. So, I think we are gradually, steadily seeing a change in Americans’ thinking, which the Supreme Court ought to keep in mind because if they rule outrageously which I’m concerned they might, on the D.C. gun ban case.

That could produce a considerable contempt of court because most people are getting just a little fed up with a court that can find rights in the shadow of the penumbra that are obviously not written in the Constitution and yet something as plain and simple as “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” might allude them? I think that would conceivably have quite an impact in the presidential elections, since they are all anti-gun candidates; certainly in the congressional races that could make a difference.

TNA: Some years ago when John Ashcroft was attorney general, when he compelled the Justice Department to do a thorough analysis of the Second Amendment, the analysis that came back was quite accurate and quite favorable to your position. Comment?

Pratt: Attorney General Ashcroft’s position in writing, that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, sounded good until you got down to the “yeah, but,” because it also said “subject to regulation.” Well there goes the ball game. We thought we had a good set of rules until we read far enough in what he said, and then we realized he might as well have been looking at the Illinois State Constitution which protects the right to keep and bear arms, “subject to the police power.”

End of Part 2

Please check back for Part 3, which will be available online shortly.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati