Viewers to Ken: No more restrictions on gun sales
»Play Video
Earlier this week authorities said they had traced the gun used by Joshua Blake to kill Trooper Tony Radulescu.
They believe the weapon was either passed down to Blake by his father, or privately purchased at a Monroe gun show.
That led to my commentary on requiring background checks for those who buy guns from private parties.
Jim Ewins writes: "It is a short step from requiring all (gun sales) subject to a background check to government having a list of gun owners - and then comes the repression (like what they have) in England."
Adam Sukert: "I find your (commentary) offensive...Why would you blame the tool for something that a person did...If a criminal wants to commit a crime he's going to do it no matter what..."
Steve Nolen: "It's not the guns, but the people."
Paul Morris: "(Government) needs to stay very clear of the private, law abiding citizens who own firearms...Get the facts...Stop relying on your sacred gun banner buddies."
And finally, from Michael Meisner: "...More government in your life that is keeping track of your personal property does not...Keep guns out of the hands of criminals who are already breaking the law by having a firearm in the first place."
Maybe that's true, Michael, but the law doesn't have to make it so darn easy from those criminals to get a gun.
Thanks for writing everyone.
Have a great weekend.
---
Have something to say to Ken? Login or signup below to post a comment. Just be sure to read the rules and keep things civil. You can also e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com. You can also connect with Ken on Facebook.
They believe the weapon was either passed down to Blake by his father, or privately purchased at a Monroe gun show.
That led to my commentary on requiring background checks for those who buy guns from private parties.
Jim Ewins writes: "It is a short step from requiring all (gun sales) subject to a background check to government having a list of gun owners - and then comes the repression (like what they have) in England."
Adam Sukert: "I find your (commentary) offensive...Why would you blame the tool for something that a person did...If a criminal wants to commit a crime he's going to do it no matter what..."
Steve Nolen: "It's not the guns, but the people."
Paul Morris: "(Government) needs to stay very clear of the private, law abiding citizens who own firearms...Get the facts...Stop relying on your sacred gun banner buddies."
And finally, from Michael Meisner: "...More government in your life that is keeping track of your personal property does not...Keep guns out of the hands of criminals who are already breaking the law by having a firearm in the first place."
Maybe that's true, Michael, but the law doesn't have to make it so darn easy from those criminals to get a gun.
Thanks for writing everyone.
Have a great weekend.
---
Have something to say to Ken? Login or signup below to post a comment. Just be sure to read the rules and keep things civil. You can also e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com. You can also connect with Ken on Facebook.
I am tired of hearing those same old NRA manufactured bromides. Background checks should be made for ALL gun purchases. Certain weapons like assault and automatic weapons, should be illegal to own. I agree that criminals have easy enough access to illegal weapons but the background check might keep some guns out of the hand's of people who shouldn't have them. I don't want to ban all guns. I agree Americans have an almost sacred right to keep firearms. Common sense might save a few lives though.
 @smokey307 "Assault" weapons and automatic weapons are extremely difficult to get. Between the cost, the time, the effort its not worth it. So, in practical fact what you want is what we already have.
I started thinking about gun restrictions, and I think they just help bad guys out they get their guns by stealing or buying in the black market, no restrictions apply and obviously not with stealing, while law abiding citizens after to deal with restrictions. Â
"but the law does not have to make it so darn easy from those criminals to get a gun"
Ken, Ken, Ken.... You must be assuming that these criminals are FOLLOWING the laws, since you think the law is allowing them to get them in the first place. Do you really think that a law that prohibits a felon from owning or  possessing a firearm, or even ammunition is making it easy for them to get a gun? The only thing any law would do, is restrict the law abiding citizen. Criminals can get fully automatic rifles, short barreled rifles, and anything they want,... because they are criminals...
For the law abiding citizen, we cannot have fully automatic rifles, or short barreled rifles in this state, because someone has deemed them to be a nuisance to public safety... A law abiding citizen, wouldn't do anything more with a fully automatic rifle, than they would with a single shot, or a semi automatic or even a muzzle loader...
You cannot make laws for criminals to follow, kind of like you can't legislate common sense.. Criminals won't follow the laws, and this state, won't hold them accountable to those laws...
The state laws don't make it easy for criminals to get guns...
Geeze Ken,... that was a really well thought statement...
Ken ........... is the boy who kicked the hornets nest. My head is going round in circles after reading all these posts. More laws is not the answer ....... these are outlaws we're dealing with. If someone wants to kill another person the jawbone of an ass works just fine .......... or so I'm told.
So Ken, how are them gun laws working in Chicago? In DC? Â Yeah, criminals don't follow laws now do they? Hence the word: CRIMINALS. DUH!
Don't worry Ken, just because the NRA activates it's member list to blow up your email in box does not mean the majority of Americans think guns should be as available as chewing gum to all comers. And there is no iron divide between criminals and "law abiding citizens" with gun abuse. Plenty of "legal" guns are used to harm others in family disputes, road rage incidents, accidental shootings, unjustifiable homicides, domestic violence, and on and on. Then there are the ones that get stolen and moved onto the street. Then there is Jethro in whatever state selling 20 guns to a front person for a criminal.Â
@Citizen#3457899654 You think guns are bad,... look at automobiles... They kill, maime, and destroy property just as good, if not better than guns do...yet, people like you don't even think twice about them...
Guns are just tools...the same as a knife, hammer, rock, or even........Hands.... hands can be used to kill, and are more commonly used in domestic violence,... and on and on....Â
Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 I'm pretty sure that the NRA doesn't notice what Ken says. He's just another small town reporter lifting falsehoods from anti-gun organizations that can't even touch the NRA when it comes to organization or fund raising.
personally, I think we should have limits on what the press can say...they are a bunch of dead bores.
 @lin Hmmm..... We should deny Ken his 1st Amendment right because he has a view on your 2nd Amendment right which you feel you cannot be denied because it is in the Constitution.Â
Â
What am I missing here....
How about that Schram is using his 1A rights to try to restrict my 2A rights....
@JusUsDogs @lin  Sounds good to me....LOL He can only have positive opinions on everything.. for everyone... No negatives... LOL
Â
Â
@JusUsDogs @lin - not missing a thing. It's the standard extremist point of view that no one else's opinion should be allowed. This comes into play mostly in the hot button issues (guns, abortion, religion, politics, etc.).
Â
Especially with the Left.
 @lin If that occurred then your freedom of speech would be limited since they are the same 1st Amendment principles.
Well, the left-wing MSM and dolts like Ken want to restrict our 2A rights, so, fair is fair....
 @DarkRenegade  @lin If they'd merely stick to "Reporting the Facts" instead of plying to sway public opinion, they'd live up to the name reporters now wouldn't they?
just foxnews? you mean every news station.
@hologram5 @DarkRenegade @lin -- Hologram - you mean like FoxNews does every day? steps away from reporting the facts and reports opinion as if it were fact?
Â
Oh and don't miss the fact that Shram's column IS PRESENTED AS OP-ED - which for those challenged by this term - IT'S AN OPINION COLUMN. It's never been presented as anything else. OP-ED is a seperate portion of journalism where the writer IS ALLOWED TO EXPRESS HIS OPINION.
Â
Now you will have to note that Fox News on the otherhand, presents thier OP-ED as if it were factual journalism in oh, so many cases.
They need to figure out how to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals, not the law abiding citizens that follow procedure to obtain their weapon.
Any sane gun owner will not mind the paper work or background check waits or limited places to buy one, etc... Â Or at least I don't see why they would. Outlawing guns in not the solution. Â Criminals will get one no matter what. Â
@teahater  I see a lot of paranoia from the NRA crowd here. I will be really paranoid if Romney wind ;-)
Well, by all accounts (background checks, medical evaluations, psychological testing) I am a sane gun owner and I for one, as well as many, many others DO, in fact, mind infringements on that right.
Â
This is a common tactic to try and justify additional restrictions. Claim that "sane" people won't mind, or that it is a "reasonable" thing, thereby inferring that anyone who disagrees is insane or irrational. The fact that you don't see why someone minds is not really relevant.
Â
What is relevant is that further ratcheting down of restrictions and regulations on the law abiding people that are already following the myriad of laws is, in fact, infringements and obstacles being put in the way of choosing to exercise a right. I will even go so far as to agree that they might result in a few saved lives, but that is not the point. The US and State constitutions don't have a clause or footnote that a right only exist so long as it doesn't cause harm or inconvenience to others. Rights are absolute and the idea was that you could only loose them AFTER you show that you cannot exercise them responsibly.
Â
The time, money, and effort being spent to try and put more restrictions in place could be put to better use by being directed to those who are breaking the laws that already exist, passing laws like mandatory sentences for armed crimes, revoking probation/parole for violators, and focusing on the actual people doing bad things.
Â
It is unfortunate that some people abuse their rights and that creates victims. The 1st Amendment is abused far more often than the 2nd, yet anyone can still buy pen and paper, computers, word processing software, publish blogs, text, twitter, etc.. No waiting period, no background checks, and no FLL (Federal Literary License) required to transfer the media.
@CommonSense Actually, it is part of the plan to put so many laws together, that all gun owners become felons, and therefore can no longer own guns.
Instead of keeping things simple, the lawyers have made things very complicated..
All laws restricting gun ownership, are infringements...
and for those who haven't looked it up, an infringement is an encroachment, which means that someone or group, is taking possession of your right slowly.
I sure wish the SCOTUS would understand that... instead of assigning different levels of scrutiny to different amendments.. as if some, are more important than others... they all carry equal weight.. (in my opinion..) and should carry the same level of scrutiny when compared to the laws that are written..
@CommonSense - it's also odd and in my opinion wrong that the reaction to any sort of gun law question is simply what you've said. Which I can boil down to the following analogy:
Â
'I know some of your horses already got out through the open barn doors, but No - you shouldn't close them to save the rest of your horses. Why? Because some got out already'.
Â
I'm not anti-gun, and I respect the second amendment. I just don't like absolutists. They over-simply everything into us vs them and nothing can be accomplished.
Â
I agree. If you're worried about criminals having guns then get a gun and protect yourself and your family like a rational person would. Everybody just seems to want the government to do everything for them any more. @CommonSense
Call off the dogs and let the cops do their job and you might not need any new laws .
Hey Ken. The law doesn't make it easier for criminals to have guns. The majority of guns that criminals have are purchased on the black market and those guns are usually stolen property. Stealing guns is a very lucrative business and if you think a criminal is going to abide by a law, well think again. If you take guns away from everyone, then only criminals will have them.
@Tierce - wow. are you sure you read Ken's comment? he's not advocating taking any guns away from anyone. he just wants to close a loophole that allows criminals to appear to buy guns legally. Don't you want criminals to NOT be able to appear to be buying guns illegally? Yeah, we know that many of them will find guns illegally anyway, but if a law can be changed that will not prevent a single legal gunowner from buying guns and the result is that it's harder for criminals to buy guns, which could result in fewer gun deaths by criminals, wouldn't you be willing to entertain that idea?
Â
The WAC gunshows have come under attack many times before, and, the attackers have been wrong. It is sensationalism, and poor "journalism".
I am totally against the governments attempts to remove my guns and restrict my right to bare arms. If you wonder why look to Mexico. There the only guns are with the cops, the military, and the drug cartels. A person can not protect them selves or neighbors from them because only the bad guys have them. All this huu huu about guns being bad is a crock of excrement. A gun has never killed someone. It took a person pulling the trigger to do it. The majority of gun related deaths are by people that shouldn't have them in the first place. Very rarely does a licensed gun owner kill someone without just cause. I DO NOT BELONG to the NRA or any other gun organization. I am only a gun owner and a responsible citizen. Â
@LongBeachBum  First, learn grammar and spelling. Second, what is just cause for killing someone? Third, check the stastics for the types of homocides.
 @LongBeachBum Made me giggle a bit when you said "right to my bare arms." I keep thinking about you fighting for your right to wear a wife-beater. ;-)
.Twice as many people die by suicide a year vs homicide and 3 times as many police officers take their own life as are killed on the job - nearly all by weapons..s So one One concern is about the link between gun ownership and death by suicide.
Â
In the 15 states with the highest rates of gun ownership are also the highest rates of death by suicide..and the reverse is true. Lower gun ownership less death by suicide. It is a also a myth that people find another method if they are blocked from one to take their own life (thankfully if you cant jump off the bridge you don't find a gun to shoot yourself). Most of the 38,000 who die by their own hand aren't mentally ill just very depressed and if we can keep the guns out of their hands they would still be with us.
Â
Just last week a 52 year old father and senior executive at the VA took his own life for example shortly after leaving a meeting and a woman shot her husband because she thought it was an intruder.. I never feel safer knowing someone has an unlocked gun in the house.
Isn't the ultimate liberty and freedom the right to decide when you no longer wish to live? People who wish to kill themselves will find a way. Why should the 2nd amendment rights of anyone be restricted so that a basic human right of whether or not to exist can be restricted?
Â
I can't exercise my right, because being able to do so might make it easier for someone else to exercise their right? That is an illogical argument.
Â
If the "choice" to end anothers life though abortion is considered a right, then how can the choice to end our own life be any less of a right?
Very well stated.
It is about time we hear this! I've been wanting to buy a grenade launcher and 105mm howitzer for years and they just won't let me. I plan to use them to hunt deer.
Hunting or recreational use is not the reason for the right, defense of self or others is.
Â
With rights comes responsibility. Unfortunately some people abuse those rights, but that should result in the punishment of those who abuse them and not punishing those who do not abuse them.
Â
Currently our President and his administration is claiming that the current unrest in the middle east is a direct result of an exercise of the 1st Amendment. Where is the rallying cry to limit the right of free speech in the interest of "public safety"?
 @CommonSense I am so relieved that you pointed out the need for heavy weaponry is self defense. All the more reason I need that 105mm howitzer. Is it too late to add an 81mm mortar to my list?
an easy solution, would be to open the NICSÂ so that anyone can call and get a check done on a prospective buyer.
@JusUsDogs @CommonSense I'd like to add a tomahawk cruise missle to the list. never know when you need to defend yourself from 2,000 miles away.
Â
(some folks just don't get satire...)
Â
commonsense - you don't seem to be excersing much common sense right now. Only the most radical anti-gun folks are advocating taking away guns. MOST folks are not doing so. Not even Ken.  While I beleive that the self defense arguement is about as overblown as it could possibly get with many of the pro-gun advocates, it is thier right to speak that way. Just as it is the right of those who don't think that way to speak thier mind.
Â
What we have is a system that allows criminals to legally purchases guns (or more accuratly 'have the appearance of purchasing guns legally).  How many of these criminals -if stopped from purchasing a gun in this mannner- would still purchase one illegally by another manner and perform the same crime that kills/harms innocent people? Probably many, but I don't know. You don't either.  How many people would not have been harmed/killed if these loopholes were closed by requiring the same checks that happen if your purchase was from a gun shop? We don't know.  But odds are greater than otherwise that at least some of those harmed/killed would not have been.Â
Â
Isn't it wise to have an intelligent discussion on the issue of eliminating the possiblity where criminals can easily and appear to legally purchase guns?Â
Â
Can we do so without creating an overly burdonsome requirement on law abiding citizens? I bet we could if the pro- side of the arguement would allow the discussion.
Â
Â
Â
We've arleady seen massive encroachment on our 1st Amendment rights and the 2nd Amendment will be next if we allow it to happen. The 2nd Amendment was put there for a very important reason that the government never wants to admit to. It was put there so that when the time comes that our government no longer represents the best interests of the citizens that we have the right to change that government and install a new one that will represent the people. We're not supposed to talk about that though because it might scare people. People should be scared. Its amazing how many civil liberties we've lost in just the last 10 years.
You hit the nail on the head with that statement. We are allowed to own and bare (concealed or not) by Law, the Second Amendment; our local governments requiring us to purchase a concealed carry permit violates our Second Amendment right to bare.
Please, everyone, it is BEAR ARMS, not BARE ARMS. You are not helping your side ofthe argument if you sound ignorant.
This comment has been deleted
How would you like it, Ken, if every time some moron posted something hateful and bigoted, perhaps even libelous, about blacks / Jews / gays / whites / southerners / honkies / WASPs / Muslims / Christians / Buhdists / athiests / left-handed polyethnic midgets, we had people calling for "common sense controls" on YOUR 1st amendment right to blather on about whatever you like, because THEY are offended? That is EXACTLY what your calls for "common sense gun controls" are like. Someone else commits a crime,or does something stupid, and YOU get punished for it. Does that make ANY kind of sense?
This to me is such a non-arguement. I'm a law obiding citizen and have zero problem with "restrictions" or background checks on owning a gun. Since I obey the law, I have nothing to worry about, and have no problem waiting ten days for my background to be cleared.
Â
2nd ammendment may be a right, but it can also be revoked. This isnt a ban on owning handguns, shotguns or rifles, its just a measure to attempt to limit possession to law obiding citizens such as myself. Some people will find anything to complain about.
 @northwestsurfer So you would have no problem with the Feds coming into your home without your consent and going through everything you own? I mean, you are a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, right?
@northwestsurfer
"2nd ammendment may be a right, but it can also be revoked". Thank you for stating stupidly what you think is the right direction. We have already had our 1st and 4th amendment rights severely limited by our government and you must be wholly in favor of that since you can easily make a statement like this. I find it amazing to see you claiming your 4th amendment rights below but you can so easily give away your 2nd amendment rights.
Â
You are absolutely wrong in this argument. You are so wrong that I would say you are not a citizen of the US or you enjoy the stupidity you display with trolling attempts like this, or both. There are many good reasons to make changes to our rights as we have done many times in history to right wrongs but none of these have removed rights from Americans, they had added or supported rights of Americans. Only a fool would want to remove any rights we have as Americans for then America becomes a lesser nation.
Â
This though is exactly what Obama has been doing as he supported the UN worldwide gun restrictions. It is amazing how little press time his and Clinton's effort in support of this got. Just shows you how much the media is slanted in this country. I hear so many complaints about the idiot right wing people like Rush and folks but when the idiot left wing like yourself goes off there is very little complaints especially in main stream media. You must feel good sitting with you clique of friends talking over some high priced flavored coffee exposing on about how dumb guns are. I always find it very entertaining to watch people humanize objects just because they are dumber then the object itself.
Â
@northwestsurfer I like the way you put that. Nice!
Â
 @northwestsurfer You'll be the first one the Gov't approaches to take your weapons in the event you are caught in a natural disaster like Katrina. Where the Government took lawfully owned firearms from persons committing zero crimes. Most of which were never returned to the rightful owner. BTW- since you're such a good citizen when the law comes banging on your door to search your house for no reason whatsoever and without a warrant you'll just let them in. Because you have nothing to hide. Got it...
haha, your arguement is a complete fallacy. I am talking about background checks to obtain firearms, before I buy them, and that is already a law.
Furthermore, regarding your idea about warrantless searches; the fourth ammendment already protects me from "unreasonable and illegal search and seisure". Better brush up on your civics, homie.
Besides New Orleans, which happened 7 years ago, when was the last time the government confiscated weapons legally owned by citizens? They havent.
I think you should brush up on reality instead; New Orleans was under de facto martial law. All law enforcement was conducted by the 65,000 national guard, active duty, and reserve troops that were stationed there in the aftermath of the hurricane.
@northwestsurfer just like it did in New Orleans... The 4th amendment really protected those people from illegal search and seizure....Â
They used the purchase histories that are reported to form a list, and they did exactly that, went in illegally, and searched homes of people.
I think you need to brush up on reality, instead of civics, which the government only uses to its advantage.
 @northwestsurferÂ
Maybe you should brush up on how well the 4th amendment protected gun owners in LA after Katrina, many of whom are STILL fighting to get their seized property returned.
 @northwestsurferÂ
Maybe you should brush up on how well the 4th amendment protected gun owners in LA after Katrina, many of whom are STILL fighting to get their illegally seized property returned.
Â
So if you sell a used car to someone you want the state to require you to ensure that person has a legal drivers license and insurance?
Private sales are exactly that, private. We have too much government intrusion in our lives now, we don't need any more. People that are concerned about criminals having guns should use some common sense and get a gun themselves because thats the only way to protect you and your family. The police certainly can't do it even if all guns were registered.
@northwestsurfer  @d_2
@northwestsurfer Since you live in the Seattle area, you better check on what the 4th amendment REALLY protects. After 9/11, the government quietly changed the laws. Warrantless searches have ALWAYS been legal at the border. After 9/11, the BORDER, was redefined as 100 miles INLAND which just so happens to encompass about 80% of American citizens since that is where our major cities are. That means you effectively have no 4th amendment rights here.
Â
http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone
Â
 @northwestsurfer  @d_2 I believe I do understand your point. I also understand the implications of it. I agree that background checks are good: when I buy or sell a gun, it is either with someone I know and have a degree of trust with, or I look at their CPL and ID, or their WAC badge (which does a background check), and I keep and make a private sales receipt. No official notification, paperwork, or involvement needed. OTOH, if confiscations DID start in any regular way, or even in a "irregular but headed our way" method, then gun trading would get a LOT more loosy-goosey in the gun-owning community, I suspect, as well as a sudden interest in gardening, geocacheing, and other such outdoor activities. And the criminals won't change a thing.
 @northwestsurfer  @d_2 I understand your point, but disagree. Additional background checks for private firearm transactions will have zero effect on crime. If it were a law, the SP officer would still have been the victim of a horrible crime. Committed by the scumbag that pulled the trigger.
 @northwestsurfer  @RN1 What's your point? The fact is that it DID happen. And under certain or similar circumstances it can happen again. Are you good with that? You support the Gov't taking firearms from responsible and law abiding citizens? (7yrs ago) When it occurred is irrelevant.
@d_2
I said i have no problem with background checks. So what do you want me to do, agree with you because you dont like the idea of more background checks?
Hey, its a matter of preference.
I understand your point, I suspect you wouldnt understand my point. Carry on.
@RN1 7 years ago..that must mean it happens daily. My god...
 @northwestsurfer so you are saying that, because of the 4th amendment, there were no illegal taking of guns by cops or soldiers, like say, this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE
 @northwestsurfer Back on topic... background checks are in fact the law for purchases from an FFL. Whereas private transactions are not. If they were this would have zero impact on criminals obtaining them. Do you think a criminal is going to volunteer for a background check and register a gun he bought on the corner to commit a crime? Oh... I am fully aware of illegal search and seizure. It was a comparison about volunteering personal information and allowing a search of your home and contents w/o a reason - because you are a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide. I suspected that you wouldn't understand my point. Carry on.
 @northwestsurfer So, basically, you are saying you are totally unfamiliar with the history of registration lists being used for confiscations, often (though not always immediately) before / during the imposition of a police state.
@RN1 Nope. I am saying i have no problem with a law already on the books. The law says handgun owners must not be felons and be able to pass a background check, thats already a fact. I'm saying i have no problem with this.
Â
Also saying, if there was a law requiring the same for private sales, I would have no problem with this. If you are going to paraphrase me, make sure its accurate.
In case anyone does not know, in Washington, all records of handgun purchases are attached to your name and CPL and are maintained by DOL. As a Police Officer, when I make an inquiry on a person's CPL status, it shows a list of all purchased handguns (through an FFL dealer). Make, type, caliber.
 @northwestsurfer  @RN1 Right now, if you buy a handgun via an FFL, you have to fill out a state form that registers the ownership of the handgun by serial number. Private sales don't have that. If you want all sales to go through an FFL and have the background check, then you are ALSO demanding (even if not aware of it) that everyone register all sales with the state, so only grand-fathered private-sale ownership will be unregistered. Th only alternative is that you are favoring a method of private sales to do their own background check as an FFL would, but that is in no way implied by your original post.