From: [k--ar--s] at [cc.memphis.edu] Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: [INTERVIEW] G.O.A.'s Larry Pratt Date: 21 Jan 96 23:15:04 -0500 A GUN OWNERS' STATE OF THE UNION: An Interview with Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt [Memphis, Jan. 19-20] - Gun Owners of America's executive director Larry Pratt admits he's not yet wired into the Net Age, unlike prominent Second Amendment attorney David T. Hardy, who's a contributor to a recent book of essays edited by Pratt titled_Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution and Citizen Militias._ "If I don't have training wheels on_this_bike, I don't stay up," Pratt said of his own computer skills. Pratt arrived here on his book tour last weekend to bring the gospel of the Second Amendment to a group of several thousand evangelical Christians, gathered in a rather unlikely spot, the massive stainless-steel Great American Pyramid sports arena which often serves as a downtown temple of basketball fervor for the nationally-ranked University of Memphis Tigers. The conservative gathering, billed as The National Affairs Briefing by its organizers, featured appearances by several Republican presidential candidates, including Sen. Phil Gramm, former diplomat Alan Keyes, commentator Patrick Buchanan, Sen. Richard Lugar, U.S. Rep. Robert Dornan, and businessman Charles Collins; as well as Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne. The program also included dozens of speakers discussing national, economic, constitutional, moral and religious issues, usually from an evangelical Christian perspective. In his speech, Pratt noted that relying upon the police "to serve and protect" in the event of imminent criminal attack is as a practical matter ineffective. Nor can the police be held legally responsible for the safety of each individual citizen. There has been "lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit" to that effect, Pratt said. The tendency to want to rely on the "experts," he said, runs counter to "what I think the Bible talks about as an obligation to protect_ourselves... We weren't given the gift of life so we could just hand it over to some criminal element."_ Speaking of the account of the first murder in the book of Genesis, Pratt observed, "What was the response of God to that? Did He say, 'Should've registered rocks'? Or, 'Should've had a waiting-period for plows?'" Instead, said Pratt, "ever since Noah, the penalty for murder has been death." In the gospel of Matthew, said Pratt, "Christ reiterates capital punishment... and He picked a very politically-incorrect subject to reaffirm it, too," namely, executing rebellious teenagers. The U.S. Constitution was designed, says Pratt, to prevent government from escaping the authority of the people, and the Second Amendment "was put in there specifically to make sure that government never had a monopoly of force." This soft-spoken, bookish man from New Jersey (who now lives in northern Virginia) doesn't look like the stereotype of the leader of what freshman U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R, TX) describes in GOA's literature as "the only no compromise gun lobby in Washington." Founded in 1975 as a response to the organized "gun control" lobbies that followed in the wake of the unrest and assassinations of the late 1960s, Gun Owners of America has historically attracted those who are dissatisfied with the political dealmaking and occasionally ineffective tactics of the far larger National Rifle Association of America, the organization most often labelled "the gun lobby" in the mass media. The advantage of GOA, as Pratt sees it, is that his organization is directly focused on the political dimensions of the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA, Pratt says, has to represent hunting, sport shooting, collectors, and other interests, a fact which often compels them not to be as hard on those politicians who, while they may support guns for "sporting purposes," work to undermine the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Pratt was interviewed during his appearance at the National Affairs Briefing as he sold and signed copies of his book at the GOA table in the concourse of the arena. Ken Barnes (KB): You've mentioned that there are some policy disagreements between GOA and NRA, and I was wondering if you could mention just a few of those... Larry Pratt (LP), Gun Owners of America: Sure. Well, the two [issues] that were noticable last year were... One, that dealt with some [legislative] language in HR 1488, one of the bills to repeal the semi-auto ["assault weapon"] ban. And the other, were some issues in the [anti-terrorism bill] "government terror" bill, as we call it, that in both cases the NRA just didn't want to get involved with. KB: Do you think that's because of the perception that the NRA would be seen [as "defending terror"?] LP: No... at least [that's not] what they were saying in the case of the provision in [HR] 1488 that would have federalized virtually all state gun laws and made it a ten-year mandatory minimum for conviction on any one of those at the federal level. They said, "Look... we want a vote on the bill, that's what we're after, and it's not going to get through the President's veto, so what does it [the extra language] matter?" We said, "We share your desire to have a vote on the bill, that's good because that's the way you hold them [the legislators] accountable." But for that very _reason..._ KB: You want a "clean" bill. LP: ...you want a 'clean' bill [a bill without extraneous amendments], because then, otherwise you're in a position of having said "O.K." to a bad bill, and the next time, when it really could be moving for_sure,_for_real,_then they'll say "Gee... you supported it last time, what's the matter_now?"_ So, we don't want to be in that position, that_confuses_allies, and they genuinely don't understand [it] when you're switching on them like that... Then, in the "government terror" bill, they [the NRA]_should_be opposed to it, and I'm trying to contact one of their directors already because they have finally come around, and the [NRA] board is now of one mind on the exclusionary rule [restricting "warrantless" searches and seizures]. So now they're for it, and if they had it to do over again they would have opposed not just the BATF being taken out of HR 666, they would have opposed all of HR 666... KB: You were [saying earlier] that the Republican leadership is wanting to bring forward this terror bill[, that it's Rep. Henry Hyde's legislation, and he wants it voted on]. How seriously do you take the pledge by [Speaker of the House] Newt Gingrich not to have any gun bills pass under his [watch]? LP: They'll deny that this is a gun bill. They're pushing this because they don't see the concept, they don't see that a bill that says that if you transfer a gun to someone else and you "should have known" that they'd commit a crime, then you can go to jail for a minimum mandatory [sentence] of five years [is a gun bill]. I'm sure they don't even look in the bill... [or] they could see that, and they could probably understand that there'll be a_lot_fewer gun dealers in the country if that passes. KB: And you said the NRA is kind of silent on that? LP: They said, "Well, there's no case law on that, so we're not going to get involved." But there_will_be case law if it passes, you can bet your life on that! We're saying that the "government terror" bill, would put a dealer, or anybody who sells a gun in_great_jeopardy for just having sold the gun. A lot of dealers would probably say "I'm outta here..." If you can get a jury to agree that you "should have known" that the guy would threaten to shoot the tires of somebody out, you could go to jail for _five_years_ because somebody threatened to shoot somebody's tires out. Federal minimum mandatory sentence. That could even alarm hunters, because where are you going to buy your next shotgun if all of the dealers in your county and the surrounding counties have said "I'm outta here"? KB: That seems to go along with the strategy of some anti- gunners to use strict liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers and others... LP: Uh-huh. That's been one of their favorite approaches, along with banning bullets. In this "government terror" bill, they would set up a commission to study banning more bullets... It's a taxpayer-subsidized study for Handgun Control, Inc., is what it amounts to. I think those are good reasons to oppose the bill, even from a narrow pro-gun point of view. And the NRA has just been of absolutely no help on that ...so we've been working with the ACLU. KB: The whole idea of setting up strict liability for a product like that seems pretty risky for other businesses, besides [gun dealers]. LP: Oh, that precedent ought to scare the Chamber of Commerce to death! Once you get that on the books, you can come back and do it for anybody else. Crazy stuff... KB: [Getting back to the semi-auto ban repeal for a moment, what do you see as the chances of getting a vote on that?] LP: We certainly share their [the NRA's] view that we need a vote on the repeal... It should have been done_last_year, because we need things like this so we can... KB: ...target people in the primaries. LP: _Exactly._ And now you've got March deadlines and primaries, you've got_six weeks... That means that there's no time to go recruit somebody, there's no time to identify [which districts to target]. Really, all of that is much more difficult now. Thank you Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. Dick Armey is the principal reason why we don't have a vote. He did not want it, he made sure it didn't happen. He didn't want it in the Contract with America, and he didn't want the vote to occur early in the new Congress because that was for the Contract for [sic] America... Forget the fact that the only thing they took an oath to uphold was the Constitution. That was his political judgement, that they didn't want that_then._ You're making the same mistake you guys made on the Crime Bill in 1994. You're inside the Beltway, and you lose track of reality. And what's going to happen is, if you don't let the vote occur on this now, it's going to be too late, if at all, when it finally does come up, and then there'll be a tendency to want to compromise just to get anything passed. That's exactly what's been happening. KB: In your speech, you alluded to the research that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has done [to expose the connections and similarities between the 1938_Waffengesetz_in Hitler's Germany and the 1968 Gun Control Act in the United States. How do you view JPFO?] LP: Oh, they're a great group. We've worked with them, we contributed to them so they could run ads, 'cause they're a lot smaller. We're coming out with a listing of books that you probably won't find in your local bookstore on the Second Amendment, and both of their books are going to be included in what we offer. Actually three, because they've got a comic book that they're just finishing up work on. KB: JPFO has criticized NRA's apparent unwillingness to publicize or acknowledge this research, [or JPFO's other research which shows that "gun control" has helped make genocides possible throughout the 20th Century]. LP: Right. They're [the NRA] not, and I don't know why. It seems to me that, well sure, the other [anti-gun] side screams "That's a vicious thing to do, and that's terrible... are you suggesting that we're Nazis?" Look, we're not saying anything of the kind. We're saying that you're supporting a Nazi measure, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, because we don't think you are [Nazis]. If we thought you were Nazis, we'd call you a Nazi. But you're supporting a Nazi bill. Isn't that shameful? Why should we be on the defensive just because [U.S. Rep.] Charlie Schumer (D, NY) doesn't like it? KB: There's a fairly esoteric point of law that's been a current debate on the Net recently, which is whether the Congress should pass a law dealing with the [Supreme Court's doctrine of] "selective incorporation" of the Fourteenth Amendment, what many scholars consider to be a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court. LP: That's not a bad idea, maybe... Certainly they could begin by reaffirming the original intent. KB: To apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states. LP: Because the debates, as Hardy has proven conclusively... KB: Oh, by the way, David Hardy is a pretty constant participant on talk.politics.guns... LP: Oh, that's good. So he's out there... KB: He's out there as an expert on the issue. LP: And he has shown, I think beyond any doubt, that this amendment was intended to incorporate... if_anything,_the Second Amendment, because they [legislators] refer to it specifically in_debate_on the floor of the House and in some of the [state] legislatures. KB: One of the things that ought to be embarrassing to anti- gunners, should it become widely known, is that the decisions of the Supreme Court that they're relying on for [supporting] the idea that state governments can pass "gun control" laws, go back to those same decisions which are things which political liberals would absolutely [cringe to be associated with]. LP: Well, here's something where the Federal government, whether we like it or not, could intervene... and say to the states "No, you can't pass that law, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits that." That would be one kind of law that Washington could pass, and it'd be constitutional. [Congress would] be saying [to the states], "We're recognizing that we're bound by the Constitution, and so are you!" KB: One of the interesting things to me about the "gun control" discussions on the Internet is, it doesn't seem that there has been a credible defense of "gun control." When it's placed into the marketplace of ideas that's out there on Usenet, nobody really has anything to back up the premise of "gun control." LP: It's basically Sarah Brady's [Handgun Control, Inc.] stuff, which is fairly easily refuted. KB: Right. Curiously enough, there hasn't been anybody on the other side who's been able to refute... the points that are made constitutionally and factually against "gun control." There isn't really a defense there, which is I guess a hopeful sign... LP: And for the last ten years, the scholarship has been increasingly cascading from the pens of pro-gun writers in law review journals, and occasionally other places as well, and it's just largely going unaswered at_all!_ We pile up the arguments, and the other side is almost silent... KB: That's very true, it's a curious thing that in the scholarly journals, in the law reviews anyway... LP: We've won the battle there... of all places! But you know, in the long run, that's probably a_very_hopeful sign, because it means that as the attorneys see anything at all on the issue that's in writing, they're going to have a devil of a time finding anything to support what their professors are_saying._ KB: [Speaking of lawyers and the judiciary,] how soon do you think that the Supreme Court will actually address [the meaning of] the Second Amendment? LP: It's hard to say, because they've denied cert[iorari] on cases that would have directly gotten into it, but I'm a little bit more hopeful about this Court than I've been on others. Because the Tenth Amendment issues, I think they're on the right side of... That means [the] Brady [Act,] could go down in flames. They're working their way back to a better interpretation of the ["interstate] commerce" clause. KB: Right. _U.S. v. Lopez._ LP: Exactly. All the gun control [laws] since 1938 ha[ve] been based on the commerce clause, and once you pull the plug on that thing, and put the genie back in the bottle, then I think gun control at the federal level would collapse whether or not they [the Supreme Court] specifically addressed the Second Amendment. The fact is, the authority was not specifically delegated to them... forget the Second Amendment... in Article I, section 8 [the powers of Congress]. So either which way, I think we could see some real progress, even in this Court. KB: And that points up why it's important for gun owners to get out and support a presidential candidate who would appoint justices to solidify that majority. LP: Yeah... yeah. And I certainly don't think too many people here think Bob Dole would be the guy that would do that... He's such a Washington insider, he really doesn't get what's going on in the rest of the country. My impression is, the big fight is going to be over who is going to win a large number of congressional races. KB: Right. LP: Particularly in the House of Representatives. And President Clinton might get re-elected, cause that's a distinct possibility. Especially if Perot were to run... it almost doesn't matter who [else is going to run...] KB: Supposedly, the electoral college isn't favorable to Clinton right now. LP: It doesn't take much... to give a minority victory again to Clinton. But if we had a doubling of the freshman Republican class in the House, with the same mindset the present one has, you'd start to see zeroes beside some of these government agencies [in the federal budget], or some of the budgets that they're involved in. Then, it's not a matter of Clinton vetoing something. He can't veto something that never gets to his desk because it's not there... KB: [You made reference in your speech to the fact that in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in the U.S., federal law required every free man to own a military rifle and the ammunition for it, and this was a law passed contemporaneously with the Second Amendment, so as to establish the constitutional militia.] How do you view the current paramilitary militia movement that's been springing up across the country? LP: They've got a right to assemble, under the First Amendment, just like anybody else... KB: ...and a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. LP: So, if they assemble with a gun, those are two constitutionally protected things ...there's not anything wrong with it. KB: So, exercising the two rights at once is not mutually exclusive. LP: Right. Now, if they go out and put up ...as some of the talk-show hosts I've had to deal with might suggest, if they put up a burning cross on some black's lawn, all right then, I think they've broken a law. They've trespassed if they've done nothing else, and they ought to be dealt with for_that._ But they're not_doing_that! In fact, the Michigan Militia... I was on a talk show with a_really_officious host, I was on a T.V. remote, it was a T.V. talk-show in Philadelphia, and they had a fellow from the Michigan Militia, and he was asked the most demeaning, contemptuous question, something about "Well, since militias have sprung from KKK and racist origins, how do you defend yourself on that charge?" KB: "So, have you stopped beating your wife?" LP: Yeah... so [he says] "Well, I think that charge is pretty ridiculous, because my commanding officer is a black, and I've been a missionary to Haiti, and it seems to me that that's a stupid thing to say." KB: I read a book recently which was written by two anti-gun criminologists named Zimring and Hawkins about a decade ago, in which they wrote that the opinion-leading groups on the "gun control" issue in the coming years would be women and minorities, and that if substantial numbers of those two groups became gun owners, the cause of "gun control" would ultimately be lost. LP: There are a few minorities that are members of Gun Owners [of America]...not as many as we would like. I think the rank and file tends to sometimes have a different view from the leaders. Black politicians tend to be anti-gun, but I do not think that represents necessarily his constituents. Well, it represents his real constituents, who are the liberals in the rest of the Establishment that they've allied themselves with... KB: Right. It's remarkable to me to realize that today, three of the top positions in NRA, president, chief lobbyist, and the director of NRA's CrimeStrike division are all women. LP: That's got to disabuse the press of a lot of their "Bubba" stereotype... KB: What's your impression of NRA's new president, Marion Hammer? LP: Well, I know that's she's been an activist for years and years and years. She's a moxie political operative... but I think there are times when she cuts a deal too quickly. In the 1st district of Florida, the seat now held by Congressman Scarborough, they supported Benson... I forget her first name, who'd been a state senator ...and she had sponsored a measure in the city government of Pensacola which would have banned the sale of semi-auto[matic]s in the city. And Scarborough had an absolutely impeccable position on the issue, but Benson, I guess, had gotten to know Hammer in Tallhassee, she got the endorsement from the NRA. And I presume Marion Hammer had something to do with it, because they [the NRA] tend to, rightly, I'm sure, respect the wishes of directors from a particular state. [Hammer] headed up for years the NRA affiliated organization in Florida. KB: [Lastly,] there's recently been a [legislative] proposal out there for extending concealed-carry so that it's nationwide, and the states have to recognize each other's permits. LP: There's a way to do that that's constitutional, under Article IV, which requires the states to recognize and give "full faith and credit" to laws of the other states. KB: The "full faith and credit" clause... LP: And using that clause, a law was passed requiring the recognition in one state of a driver's license from another state. And you could do the same with gun carry permits. Of course, the interesting thing is, you know what they'd have to recognize if somebody came from Vermont? His driver's license. That would be his permit... --- (c) 1996 by Ken Barnes -- **x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. The University Of Memphis *(==) * <[k--ar--s] at [cc.memphis.edu]> Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. * \' * NRA/JPFO/ASM/GOP/U-U [Gramm/Alexander'96!] *(=)*** t.p.g.FAQ: http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq "There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism joined with a certain superiority in its fact." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, lecture, Dec. 9, 1841