TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

Mr. Senator let me speak

BY Dave Ross  on February 28, 2013 @ 7:45 am (Updated: 8:00 am - 2/28/13 )

flynn_ap.jpg
One of the witnesses, Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee police department, couldn't help himself, and interrupted. (AP Photo/File)
You don't often hear a senator overpowered by a witness at a Senate hearing but it happened Wednesday - at a hearing into the assault weapons ban.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was saying before we ban assault weapons, we should prosecute the unfit people who try to buy guns; the people who sign that form at the gun shop swearing they have a clean record, but then fail the background check. One of the witnesses, Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee police department, couldn't help himself, and interrupted.

"Mr Senator, the purposes of a background check -" and Flynn is cut off.

"How many cases have you made?" asked Graham.

"It doesn't matter, it's a paper thing," responded Flynn. "I want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally. That's what a background check does. If you think we're going to do a paperwork prosecution ..."

Order was quickly restored, and the Second Amendment suffered nary a scratch.

But we started to get a glimpse of what this new world of banning people instead of guns might look like - when the other witness, U.S. Attorney John Walsh, said, "There have been over 1.5 million rejected, we should be proud of that. But there is also no way that the department of justice could have prosecuted all 1.5 million people who were rejected over that 15 year purpose [period.]"

Walsh meant period. He was a little nervous. But this is our dilemma, right? The Senator wants all this law enforcement, but tomorrow across the country the federal furloughs begin - affecting police departments and U.S. attorneys offices - even as a police chief and a U.S. attorney are being told they should have prosecuted 1.5 million more people than they did.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (29)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    Wow, with that picture of Chief Flynn, I first thought some 4 star Army general was up there.
    February 28, 2013 7:31 am
    Haven't seen anything that pretentious since William Rehnquist presiding over the Clinton impeachment.

    But the point (purpose, period, whatever) that he is missing was Senator Graham's question - why are not those who cheat or otherwise falsify gun permit applications NOT actively prosecuted ???

    Sure, Milwaukee may reject a permit, but what stops a felon THEN from shopping Green Bay or Chicago or wherever until he finds a jurisdiction that does NOT catch him? And then bringing that gun back to Milwaukee ?

    OK, OK. Perhaps all 1.5M could not reasonably be prosecuted, but how about at least enough that the current laws have teeth, are actually enforces and maybe even scare a nut or two from just going across the street to but a gun ? .......... You can put even the most draconian laws on the books, but if seldom enforced.................

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    RonP
    February 28, 2013 9:10 am
    Your using that same old tired argument that someone can go elsewhere and purchase the same weapon,but you need to start with 1 before you get two.Yes it will take time nothing gets solved overnight.Are you against background checks?If so WHY?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Been hanging out with CH again, messiah ?
    February 28, 2013 9:29 am
    That 'tired old argument' is true, however. And a corilary is why they passed nation-wide prohibition 95 years ago. A law is no good if you can easily avoid it.

    But just what does 'you need to start with 1 before you get two' mean in your reference point ? ..... And why should I oppose background checks? You're fantasizing again on what you expect people to believe.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ronp
    February 28, 2013 10:26 am
    My saying you need to start with 1 before you get two was meant to illustrate that 1 City doing a gun check means Nothing without other cities joining in but you need to start somewhere even though its an inefficient system at start as cities (states) get on board the background checks take on more meaning yet even when everyone complies it will take many years before real positive results are realized.Look at race relations in our country,Rosa Parks was 1 person who started a movement that took years to make any real progress But it made progress to the point that a Black man is POTUS.A giant step from where we stood in the 1950s.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Actually, Rosa parks had been working for civil rights and the movement for at least several months.
    February 28, 2013 10:47 am
    And her stand may not have been a spur of the moment thing, but that's a different topic.

    Actually, as it is now, most if not all jurisdictions DO require background checks. ........ MY point is that the degree of enforcement can vary - that some will not check as closely as others. .. It's not as if Milwaukee requires screening and Chicago does not. But if there is no punishment for falsification, there is no deterrence for applying until your lies are overlooked.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • flipper wrote...
    And this is why our taxes our outrageous...
    February 28, 2013 10:39 am
    "If it saves only one life it's worth it"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    Ron...
    February 28, 2013 5:22 pm
    ..some good points. If I get your drift, you could make the point it is much easier to regulate, prosecute, and steal rights from law abiding citizens than do the same to criminals. That is why they push to control the things they can, and turn their backs to the things that they can't because they cost too much or will cost them votes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    As usual Dave
    February 28, 2013 7:32 am
    your slipshod reporting is shining through. If you dug deeper into the "facts" you would find that most people initially rejected under the NCIS system are later approved. They were rejected due to faulty data in the "database". 1.5 million is an irrelevant figure and the Mayor of Milwaukee is hardly an impartial figure in the "gun control debate".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I think it is police chief, you idiot
    February 28, 2013 7:48 am
    And just who is an "impartial figure"?

    And because someone has an opinion, they shouldn't be part of the "gun control debate"?

    You people are just amazing.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    opinion
    February 28, 2013 8:14 am
    has no place in our constitutional rights. That's what screws us over in the end. People's opinion on what we aught to do. Either the constitution means what it means or it doesn't. Anyway, this argument is stupid. We can't prosecute the laws criminals already break, so lets put more restriction and laws on the books. Who is going to prosecute those? You're simply making it harder for honest people to purchase a weapon. Does anything think people won't sell guns privately if there is a law? Why wouldn't they? These morons just said they have no way in heck of prosecuting them....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Even Scalia has said that the right to bear arms has restrictions
    February 28, 2013 8:24 am
    And there are restrictions now.

    Ones commonly accepted.

    I guess you might call that an opinion about a constitutional right.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    good for them
    February 28, 2013 8:27 am
    Doesn't mean it's right. All hail Scalia. Great to know, if it's commonly accepted to lock up all the Japanese, that makes it moral and ethical. If it's commonly accepted to have slaves, that makes it moral and ethical. Thanks for the lesson.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Nicely done
    February 28, 2013 9:28 am
    Put words in my mouth, where is it that I said anything about moral and ethical?

    And, in your "mind" is mass interment and slavery the moral equivalent of background checks at gun shows?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Why not
    February 28, 2013 9:55 am
    Your always trying to put words in ours. Not fun is it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I am??!!??
    February 28, 2013 10:40 am
    I don't think I've ever responded to a post of yours.

    They always seem a bit sophomoric.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Dave says, " but tomorrow across the country the federal furloughs begin - affecting police departments and U.S. attorneys offices -"
    February 28, 2013 9:04 am
    So I hope your KIRO staff gives tomorrow morning the attention it deserves, the same "the world is comming to an end" that you gave the 2" of snow during snowmageddon received.....I'm expecting to see them everywhere reporting "furloughgeddon".....oh the humanity, the chaos.........where's Rocky and Bullwinkle when you need them to come in and save the day? I hope we have the National Guard on standby if for no other reason but to hold Dave's hand and get him through the trauma.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And I am still waiting to hear just how much of a cut President Obama will take on his paycheck tomorrow.
    February 28, 2013 9:21 am
    Or if he can no longer take Air Force One to his next golf game with Tiger Woods.

    BTW, mnpat, I thought it was Mighty Mouse who 'came to save the day.'

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    ron prevost
    February 28, 2013 9:53 am
    Ron, you are absolutely correct....it was in fact Mighty Mouse!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jstumbo wrote...
    I thought...
    February 28, 2013 3:58 pm
    It was Andy Kaufman?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ratrustle wrote...
    So, what's the answer?
    February 28, 2013 9:11 am
    I love the sensational headlines. But, really -- what's your solution to pay for all this? That's a story I'll be glad to read Dave!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lonestar wrote...
    Maurice Clemmons
    February 28, 2013 9:22 am
    Was a convicted killer and lunatic, yet he somehow figured out to get around the background check. Shouldn't we start by keeping guns out of the hands of the known bad guys who are supposed to have parole officers. (Tuba man killer is another one.) Why are we promised smarter government but we keep getting the same old dumber government?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
    February 28, 2013 9:33 am
    is the biggest pile of dung in the other Washington!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Police chiefs are far removed from the rank and file. And their days in the field.
    February 28, 2013 10:41 am
    They are little more than a political figure head in most cases. Take them out of the political area and most of them will tell you that confiscating guns, or any weapon capable of inflicting trauma on another human, from law abiding citizens will not stop the next massacre.

    Parrots how many days has it been, since this person who legally had no right to own or posses a firearm of any type, the last massacre occurred? How many more guns have Americans purchased since then with no corresponding increase in shootings?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DesertRez wrote...
    Almost no
    February 28, 2013 10:43 am
    murderers attempt to buy guns from retail or gun shows so the background check is a moot point. Just like the fallacy that the sequestriation is going affect state, local, or sheriffs departments. Keep pumping out the propaganda though!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • flipper wrote...
    Atta boy Dave
    February 28, 2013 11:50 am
    You guys on the left pass law after law. Law enforcement has to be selective in enforcement in what they spend their time upon. I think the purpose of Senator Graham's question, to a police chief who's anti 2nd amendment, was to illustrate my point. A failure in a background check isn't a priority.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    If it saves one life argument is so stupid...
    February 28, 2013 2:53 pm
    I cringe whenever i hear a politician use that line including Obama. There's so many things that are lawful that cause deaths... it's not all about saving everybody from danger there's so many other factors involved... if we as a society were really living by that motto, everybody would be on a mandated diet and exercise program, People wouldn't be allowed to drive more than 10-15 miles per hour anywhere... or simply banned from driving... and no risks would ever be taken in the name of anything...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    A Sandy Hook happens every day with drunks on the road
    February 28, 2013 3:03 pm
    and they won't do anything about it.. in fact the politicians and police drive around drunk.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }