News

GOA Executive Director Takes on Background Checks—A Must Read

Beyond some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, Shooter’s Log readers have often shown their support for Gun Owners of America (GOA). Recently, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt has been making news that all supporters of the Second Amendment should hear.

During an interview with Breitbart News, the subject of background checks for gun purchases came up. Pratt was not shy in his answer, “GOA opposed them when they were first introduced under President Bill Clinton and that GOA believes they should be abolished now.” Pratt continued by stating the database tied to background checks should be destroyed as well.

GOA-Logo The discussion was focused on recent events. In particular, they were discussing the recent public shooting of the news crew Alison Parker and Adam Ward in Virginia. The fact that the gunman was able to legally purchase the handgun demonstrated the impotency of background.


Sale ends July 21, 2019


Sale ends July 21, 2019


Pratt correctly pointed out that public attackers are not the only ones background checks fail to stop. He said, “During the last year of record, although the government has done millions upon millions of background checks, they [only] brought 14 prosecutions to court for trial–hardly a crime-fighting tool.” He said some people respond to this by pointing out that there were people who were “denied getting a gun at the point of sale,” but these people fail to note that criminals get guns in ways that completely circumvent the checks.

Pratt could not be more correct. In fact, a University of Chicago Crime Lab study focused on inmates in the Cook County jail (Chicago, IL) and asked how they obtained the guns used in crimes. The inmates often avoided gun shows, Internet sales and gun stores. Instead, they preferred to buy their guns on the street through “personal connections.” The inmates went so far as to admit their goal was to circumvent law enforcement oversight of the purchase.

I am sure this is nothing new to you or me. In fact, it isn’t news to any gun owner or someone applying even a modicum of common sense. The inmates own words serves little more than to attest to the fact that background checks are nothing more than a control against the law abiding and have little to no effect on criminals.

“Many mass murders have gotten their hands on guns by passing a background check, while other criminals are resourceful. They are evil, but they are resourceful, as well, and they get their hands on guns. The idea that somehow we’re safe if we do a background check is simply not true.”

During the interview, Pratt addressed what he termed “a further danger.” The NSA has admitted to data collection and monitoring of certain communications. Do you really believe that running your personal information through a background check would be off limits for collection? I must admit, Pratt brings up a point worthy of thought.

On the subject of background checks and record keeping, Pratt was asked about what should happen next. “We should get rid of background checks, and we should destroy the databases that have been used to run those background checks and the databases holding names of gun owners that have, for certain, been created illegally.” Pratt said he hopes getting rid of background checks will help destroy “the illusion that government can protect us,” and that the elimination of background checks can be followed by the elimination of gun-free zones, where mass murderers ply their trade. He said that “would be a huge step in reducing what dirt bags can do when they decide to go out on a murder spree.” The Shooter’s Log has never had readers who were shy about expressing their opinions and I am sure this topic will not be any different, so we will open it up to you. How do you feel about background checks and what should be done? Has the government been collecting records?

Share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section.

[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog. "The Shooter's Log", is to provide information - not opinions - to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decicions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (73)

  1. Yes I agree that the back round checks need to be abolished. The data base as well, it’s just another reason of big brother-ism. It’s like the assault weapon ban, it proved that it didn’t stop the killings. It needs to go, NOW.

  2. The right to keep and BEAR arms “shall” not be infringed. Shall in legal terms means carved in stone. Yet the 2nd amend is infringed on by the feds, the state, the counties, and the cities. Why would we LET the same group (govt) that we may have to defend ourselves against decide which weapons we can have and where we can have them? ALL gun laws are illegal and are akin to the slow cooking of the frog or death by a thousand little cuts. They’ve been incrementally subverting our rights for a long time and just because they haven’t shown up and attempted total confiscation as they did at Concorde & Lexington, doesn’t mean they will stop before they relieve us of our ability to resist, thus making our will to resist evaporate. See the NRA Katrina Gun Grab videos if you’d like to see what confiscation looks like. Good Americans that have broken no law are physically deprived of their lawful property at the say of some minor politician and police chief all the while having machine guns pointed at them. Keep in mind that the little boy next door who used to mow your grass is now the local cop, deputy, or nat. guardsman and for those of you that say they can have my guns when they pry my dead cold fingers from around them-THEY WILL DO THAT FOR YOU!!!

    1. “THEY WILL DO THAT FOR YOU” Only if they are READY to forfeit many of their own lives because that’s what will happen if they tried it here

  3. You are right on all counts.criminals do and will continue to buy guns illegally while we are subjected to unlawful persecution for obtaining weapons to protect our families. All background checks and lists of legal gun owners should be destroyed before the federal government leads us all to the showers.

  4. I am a firm believer that background checks do little to prevent criminal activity simply because criminals aren`t getting background checks in the first place. That being said, the only people affected by gun laws are the law abiding citizens that obey them and those people by and large are not the problem. This is a simple fact that is lost in the mind of a democrat politician and just about all gun grabbers out there.
    Now, if I were in charge, I would pass a gun law that says if you have a current concealed carry license, no background check needs to be done on you because you have already had a more extensive check done on your background to get your license than the simple NICS check. We CCW licensees should just be able to show the license and purchase our gun and walk out the door, quick and simple.

    1. Move to Kentucky, that is the law of the land here.

      Also, state law is supreme. No city or county can have gun laws more restrictive than the states.

      Most of the guns laws here are more common sense and dictate things how to transport and use. Mostly related to hunting.

    2. Yeah Chris I live in Ohio and our gun laws are pretty much common sense here too. Nothing like the folks in Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Washington, California, Connecticut and DC have to put up with. That is what happens when you vote people into office that have no idea what they are doing, but believe they know what is best for you. The time has come for us law abiding gun owners to get out and VOTE and make sure you know who you are voting for.

  5. Patrick, you are absolutely correct. My problem was that the shooter had been to therapy. They should focus on that and what went wrong. I don’t want to go to the hospital one day for a headache and have someone check the wrong box then I have to waste my time and tax payers dollars trying to prove there is nothing wrong with me, while they confiscate my weapons for nothing. And as far as the police, I will never need their help, someone broke into my house stole 1400.00 worth of stuff, I told them what it was and who did it, they told me it was a civil matter. My grandfathers funeral someone broke into my house and stole my guns, police said they knew who it was and where the guns were, but Id never see them again. When I was young the cops would confiscate drugs in the east side and sell them on the west side. In my area if you carry a certain amount of cash, the police can take it and they’ll tell you, you wont get all of it back. If you have less than 2.00 in your pocket you can get arrested for vagrancy. I don’t believe to serve and protect doesn’t pertain to one individual Ive seen police protect just one. I would like to thank all the people on the website. I try to read all the comments and Ive learned a lot and I hope others have learned from me. Im going to take the classes that are going city to city to teach people how to lobby for what you believe in because I want to put my money where my mouth is. I will be getting on hear for advice on situations, and I know you people have no problems with helping me. So thanks again.

  6. Patrick very true on all of it. The main problem is we have an administrator, who would like to make the people dependent on the government/police for protection. The police do not want that responsibility, because it is impossible. It is we the people who are caught in the middle.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.