Editor's note: The candidates' responses to the following question are exactly as submitted, without any editing.
12. Would you support expanding background checks for gun purchases?
Estakio Beltran -- As a gun owner, this issue comes down to the Constitution and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Americans have the right to own guns and when you believe in this fundamental principal, anything that we put in front of it becomes an impediment. More laws only serve to infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.
George Cicotte -- It is reasonable for Congress to consider whether our current system of background checks is adequate to preserve public safety, while simultaneously protecting the Second Amendment. In the interest of maintaining safety and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, I believe we should enforce existing law, which includes background checks.
Where background checks are required under current law, I believe they should only be used to ensure that violent criminals and the mentally-ill are prohibited from obtaining firearms (to the extent a background check can actually catch this), and for no other purpose. I am not in favor of the government using background checks as a means to collect personal information from gun owners, or to create a gun registration database.
Clint Didier -- Candidate has not provided a response.
Janea Holmquist -- No. This is just another attempt to erode our constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment Rights.
I am an endowment lifetime member of the NRA, proud gun owner, and an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. As State Senator, I helped stop proposals in the Legislature that sought to erode our 2nd amendment rights such as gun registration.
I am Blessed to have received the highest possible NRA rating and endorsements from groups such as the Hunters Heritage Council.
Kevin Midbust -- I would support ending the Federal Reserve. The quickest and best way to end violence is to return the control of money back to the individual. People are always looking for that one golden law that will end violence, and more laws just aren't the answer. This has been proven time and time again. If we really want to address violence, then we have to address the real cause of violence. You see, everything is economics. When an individual feels they don't have enough of something, they weigh their options and determine what benefits them the most. Theft may be seen as more economically beneficial than getting a job. When an individual is on a level where they believe they have no life, the only solution seems to be to take a life. Poverty is what causes violence. The Federal Reserve is ground zero for the destruction of our money and wealth. It creates poverty. It is the creator of most all of the wars and violence experienced across the world.
Dan Newhouse -- I believe the laws already on the books are sufficient, as long as they are enforced.
Gordon Allen Pross -- Off the Second Amendment NO. Off the back of separation of power to the states, feel free.
Josh Ramirez -- At this point I have seen no additional gun regulation that I would support.
Tony Sandoval -- No, Business people have enough regulations already.
Gavin Seim -- Certainly not.
Glen R. Stockwell -- No! I believe only 3 of the candidates running for office object to background checks and I am one of them. It is one more step for big brother and since Edward Snowden went public about the illegal wire taps and etc. we don't need any more intrusions. The second amendment doesn't require it and even though Britain has much stronger laws, 2 Muslims decided to kill a British Soldier in 2013 and they used a machete to accomplish it! Guns don't kill! It is people who choose to kill their victims!
People have been killing each other since Cain and Able and it is something that seems to follow our civilization for many years!
Richard Wright -- Candidate has not provided a response.