Gun Control

Cory Booker Wants Mandatory Federal Licenses for Prospective Gun Owners

And that's just one of the measures outlined in his new gun control proposal.

|

New Jersey senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker released a sweeping gun control plan today. Its most noteworthy aspect is a proposal that all prospective gun owners be required to obtain a federal license, which they'd have to renew every five years.

The plan also calls for bans on "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks (which President Donald Trump has already prohibited), as well as universal background checks and other measures.

Booker's campaign compares buying a gun to driving a car, arguing that "just as a driver's license demonstrates a person's eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain basic safety and training standards necessary to own a gun." Under Booker's system, anyone who wants a gun would have to prove he or she has passed a gun safety course. In addition to giving information on their background, applicants would also submit fingerprints.

If approved, prospective gun buyers would be issued a license. "The license would be valid for up to five years before renewal with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms," the proposal says. Under another part of the plan, no one would be able to buy more than one handgun a month, though this restriction presumably wouldn't apply to rifles and shotguns.

Booker would essentially create a federal firearms registry, an idea that raises serious civil liberties concerns. As Reason's J.D. Tucille explained in December 2017:

We live in a world governed by officials who love exercising power to punish people they dislike. To put yourself on a registry of people who engage in activities, or own goods, that are even mildly controversial is to make yourself vulnerable to such officials. It identifies you as a target for such people, and outs you in a position to be singled out for special treatment.

Booker's call for universal background checks is also notable. Federal law already requires a background check at the point of sale for people looking to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. But Booker wants to close the supposed "gun-show loophole," which allows prospective buyers to obtain a gun from an unlicensed dealer without undergoing a background check. He also wants to end the so-called "Charleston loophole," which got its name after a man murdered nine people in a Charleston church in 2015. The shooter was a prior offender, but his background check took longer than three days, meaning he was able to legally buy a gun.

Requiring universal background checks may sound great in theory, but it's a bad idea in practice.As Reason's Jacob Sullum explains here, the requirement is impossible to enforce. It would also likely bar nonviolent offenders and people who admit to having had suicidal tendencies from buying a gun. And of course, truly violent criminals who obtain their guns illegally will probably just continue to do so.

As noted above, Booker also wants to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks. These platforms, particularly the first, are hallmarks of Democratic calls for gun control, despite the fact that the term "assault weapon" itself is really just a scary name for an arbitrary group of firearms. Banning high-capacity magazines, meanwhile, raises the question of what the government will do to ensure that people turn in the ones they already own.

Booker's plan also takes aim at the gun industry. "Firearms are exempt" from federal regulations, his campaign claims, and this allegedly means "gun manufacturers have little incentive to make their products safer." Booker "will work to close this loophole in federal oversight and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure gun safety by making safety warnings and issuing recalls for faulty firearms." The candidate also wants firearm sellers and manufacturers to face civil liability for gun violence.

There are several other elements to Booker's plan. It would, for example, "incentivize states" to pass laws making it easier for "family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals showing warning signs of hurting themselves or others." These "red flag" bills have become law in some states, such as Colorado, and Reason's Sullum has explained why the process used to take away people's guns based on their future behavior is rigged from the start.

You can read the Booker campaign's full proposal here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

172 responses to “Cory Booker Wants Mandatory Federal Licenses for Prospective Gun Owners

  1. Under Booker’s system, anyone who wants a gun would have to prove he or she has passed a gun safety course.

    C’mon Joe! It’s 2019. No respect for the rights of gun-owning, non-binary, genderqueer otherkin?

    1. Shouldn’t you be using “xir” as the pronoun then?

      1. I prefer Ze myself!

    2. Booker is a fool, and that is being kind. Does this fool Booker think that his idiotic, and unconstitutional plan will help anything? Does he really think crooks, who do 99.99999% of the killing, will be stopped by his dolt’s plan? Nope, he is just trying to appease those whose votes he seeks, which is the usual loser’s ploy.

      1. Sorry, accidentally flagged this comment. Meant to Reply and stupidly clicked the wrong thing.

        Anyway…

        “crooks, who do 99.99999% of the killing”

        Should be “crooks, who do 99.99999% of the killings that aren’t suicides” since approximately 2/3s of all gun deaths in the US are suicide.

        If Booker was serious about preventing gun deaths, he’d propose a law to make committing suicide by gun punished by uber-harsh penalties–maybe even the death penalty–so no one will commit suicide by gun due to fear of the penalties. Right?

      2. A few weeks ago, this race-hustling ignoramus said “Bigotries” were written into the Constitution…Another Booker, but a great American patriot said this below over a hundred years ago & it describes this buffoon to a T (no pun intended)
        ____________________________________________________

        “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

        “I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”
        -Booker T. Washington, “My Larger Education”, 1911

      3. No, Booker is not a fool. He is a scoundrel. He belongs to a class of would-be Aristocrats and knows full well that, if he has his way, sooner or later an armed populace would be a serious threat to his plans. So he wants to disarm the People.

        His fellow would-be Aristos are losing power, but fighting bitterly to keep it. Please God they keep losing.

      4. Anyone think Booker knows the racist history of gun control laws?

    3. It’s time to start investigating people like Booker for seditious and treasonous activities. Unlike Trump, I’m sure Booker and most of his Allies are quite guilty of crimes against the republic.

    4. I find many ridiculous comments in this thread so this won’t be one of them. Gun licensing and a national registry are two excellent methods of controlling ownership of killing instruments. Recall that the 2nd A was written at a time of muzzle loaders. As firepower has increased steadily over the years the regulation of firearms must increase proportionally. (Note that driver’s licenses also were not needed in the early years when there were automobiles.)

      1. OBL does a much better job of sarcasm.

      2. Some people back then actually had military cannons….Your point is moot!

      3. Firepower has not increased over the years in the US. It peaked in 1934 and has slowing been going down since 1968.

      4. “As firepower has increased steadily over the years the regulation of firearms must increase proportionally.”

        Oooh, do the First Amendment next. I mean, back when it was written, it’d take WEEKS for news to reach across a landmass the size of the current USA. Now it occurs instantaneously.

  2. At least they are being up front, if not honest, about their far reaching desire to take away our rights. This particular Spartacus dream list of course will only serve as a stepping stone to actual mandatory confiscation per Australia and, most recently, New Zealand. Or as Joe Biden described the political fervor following the Newtown shooting, “this is just the beginning.”

    1. National registration mean National confiscation. The half wit parading as a US Senator says it is like driving a car you need a license… Except we don’t have National drivers licenses. Yes the assault weapons ban is really a ban on all semi automatics including shot guns and the “gun show loop hole” is really the private sale exemption… So why can’t they call it what it is? Corey the half wit probably doesn’t even know this as he is fed the talking points. He spends far too much time in bus station bathrooms.

      1. “Except we don’t have National drivers licenses”

        And driving is not ensconced in the Constitution with the words “shall not be infringed.”

        1. And a license is not required to drive on private property.

        2. And I don’t recall ever having to be fingerprinted to get a driver’s license.

      2. You are mistaken about national driver’s licenses. To get and hold a commercial driver’s license a would-be driver must pass federal licensing requirements, which include written testing, road testing, annual medical examinations by government licensed practitioners (paid for by the driver), and continuous random drug testing as much as 4 times per year. There are also ongoing paper work requirements for the operation of the vehicles. Those qualification and operation requirements apply not only for tractor trailer drivers, but also for the drivers of many smaller trucks, and for school bus and motor coach drivers.

        I don’t know what comparative public safety assessments might show, if CDL holders were compared to unlicensed gun users. Might be worth looking into, if there were useful data about gun use and public safety. Strikingly, those data are regularly compiled for commercial vehicles, but not at all for guns, because political pressure has long forbidden federal funding for such gun studies.

        If advocates for commercial trucking interests lobbied for an end to compiling safety statistics regarding trucks, they would be shunned, and their lobbying interests ignored. Likewise, folks who won’t at least back comprehensive studies of public safety issues involving guns, should not be treated as credible critics of public policy on gun-related issues.

        Many gun advocates are instead forthright opponents of having gun policy at all, which makes them, willy-nilly, opponents of public safety as well. They don’t seem to care.

        1. Many gun advocates are instead forthright opponents of having gun policy at all, which makes them, willy-nilly, opponents of public safety as well. They don’t seem to care.

          Begging the question that a “gun policy” is even needed.

        2. The FBI regularly traces “crime guns.” Between WISQARS at the CDC and the Uniform Crime Reports there is an astounding amount of detailed information about crime and firearms, including homicides, suicides, injuries and accidents. It’s there for anybody to see and analyze for themselves. I know because I use it all the time. National, State, County, and Metro Area stats can be found. There is no shortage of firearms studies. Not by a long shot. And with players like Bloomberg in the picture, there is sure as heck no shortage of money if someone wishes to fund actual science.

          1. AlbertP, just for the sake of being forthright, you might mention that the crime gun data is forbidden by law to be computerized. It’s kept as giant stacks of paper originally filled out by gun dealers—who of course aren’t positioned when they sell a gun to know anything at all about the crime it eventually gets used for. Also, because there actually is no legal requirement that local jurisdictions report gun crimes to to anyone, including the FBI, and no uniform requirements for what gets reported and what gets left out, those statistics are largely useless, except for cherry picking in support of tendentious arguments. Many jurisdictions don’t even bother to report.

            To give you an example of what is missing, it would help gun policy debates to know whether the injuries experienced by gun crime victims have on average become more severe as the mix of semi-automatics in the national arsenal increased. Do you suppose you could use the stats you mention to construct a reliable analysis of that question?

            1. Well, here is one publication on “crime guns” from the ATF. It took me about 60 seconds to find it: And your are correct in that I wish the information was more easily accessible. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2017

              The UCR collects information on types of weapon: rifle, shotgun, pistol, as well as “unknown” If you are looking at the total number of homicides committed with “assault rifles,” well, true, I cannot give you that number. One reason, of course, that there are several different definitions of “assault rifles” in use in different jurisdictions.

              I can also not give you a break-down on how many homicides were committed with semi-auto rifles. But I can give the homicide number for ALL rifles: In 2017, that was 403. That includes hunting rifles, target rifles, your grandfather’s squirrel gun, etc.

              https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

              As regards to the seriousness of non-fatal injuries in the world of semi-automatics, it is well accepted that while the number of mass-murders has remained fairly static, they have become more lethal, certainly at least in the more publicly visible ones. On the other hand, overall, the favorite weapon of choice for the would-be mass murderer is a pistol. A semi-auto pistol. This is, of course, the first choice for the police, the military, security folks, many target shooters, “plinkers,” and those choosing a weapon for home defense.

              I did, a few years ago, using medical records, try to find a change in the relationship between firearms injuries and firearms fatalities.. let’s see. Overall injury vs fatality rate for firearms for the years 2001 vs 2014 don’t tell us very much. While the non-fatal injury rate per 100.000 is a bit higher for 2014 than 2001 (29.1 vs 25.5), the fatal injury rate is (very) slightly lower (10.54 vs 10.38) Quite frankly, I consider the latter difference statistically insignificant, and, frankly, if there is an actual difference, I would suspect that it has more to do with improved emergency medical services than anything else.

          2. As for Bloomberg, his money can’t compel local jurisdictions to collect particular data, or report it if they don’t want to. And many of them don’t want to, for a variety of reasons. So private money really can’t be a useful answer until public policy steps up to assure systematic data collection, collation, and digital storage.

            1. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2017

              The crime-gun trace in the above-linked publication contains data from all 50 States. The only estimate I could find for the amount of crime-data reported was in the 93% range.

              The data is there, of course, at the State level. But a 93% is more than adequate, statistically, from anybody’s standard. Inferring that the data available is insufficient seems, at least, misleading.

  3. Does purchasing a gun qualify as interstate commerce?

    1. Close enough for government work.

    2. According to DoJ policy on when federal jurisdiction can attach based on the commerce clause:

      Unless the gun was manufactured in your state from raw materials grown/manufactured in your state*, yes, it counts as interstate commerce.

      * for steel this would mean that the ore was mined in your state, smelted into iron in your state and then the raw iron refined into steel all within the boundaries of the same state in which the gun was manufactured and sold. If the tools used to make the gun traveled in interstate commerce decades ago, the sale of the gun counts as interstate commerce. If the tools used to make the tools used to make the gun…

      1. “”Unless the gun was manufactured in your state from raw materials grown/manufactured in your state*, yes, it counts as interstate commerce.””

        Didn’t pot grown in CA for use by CA residents count under the commerce clause in a SCOTUS ruling a few years ago?

        1. The DOJ, position is that the use of tools, that once long ago traveled in interstate commerce, in the commission of a crime is enough for federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause. The crime itself need not cross state lines.

          For your CA pot case, were their gardening tools made in CA? The fertilizer they used? The grow lights? were the vehicles used to transport it made in CA?

          1. If you haven’t figured it out yet, the DOJ position effectively comes down to the feds have jurisdiction over every crime and all commerce is interstate.

          2. For outdoor crops, the sunlight used was certainly from out of state, as was the rainwater. And where did the original seeds come from for that strain they’re growing? Likely out of state too.

            Or we could just dispose of our progtards and fix this crap.

        2. That relied upon a previous ruling about how wheat grown and consumed by a family farm affected the nationwide wheat market.
          The Blind Leading the Blind.
          I think SCOTUS labors under a delusion that each iteration of the court needs to come up with a ruling that is as butt-ugly as Dred Scott.

    3. A better question is whether mere possession of a gun, (or anything else, for that matter,) can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. Is mere possession an “activity”? And can mere possession(not manufacture, not transfer, not use) really be said to have a “substantial” effect upon interstate commerce?

  4. New Jersey: The American Experiment on what life would be like had we not rebelled against Great Britain.

    1. More like if we had lost the cold war.

      1. I’ll take it – The Soviet Union had lower taxes than NJ does.

        1. Less guidos too.

          1. Guido, gopnik, what’s the difference? Honestly, all other things being equal, I prefer a guido to a gopnik

    2. New Jersey: The American Experiment on what life would be like if we were all fucking stupid and wanted to take it in the ass while sacrificing our rights.

      1. All of the above.

  5. All this ridiculous nibbling at the edges. Let’s just make it a crime to shoot someone or rob someone with a gun and get it over with.
    Does Booker has the guts to do that?

    1. Whoever these Democrat candidates campaign managers are are stupid as dirt.

      Democrats need moderate Centrists to win any more elections outside bastions of Blue. Centrists tend to have guns, have opinions that fall outside Socialists Dogma, and live in rural America.

      Its funny to see Democrats send any remaining Centrists in the Party of slavery running from them.

      1. Maybe the plan is to establish gun control bona fides early in primary season and then conveniently forget to talk about them during the general election.

        1. Booker, and every other Democrat, know that they can push this crap and the only people who will report on it are libertarian or conservative sites. Then in the general election, they know that their allies in the media will never bring up these ideas when they say they ‘respect the 2nd amendment’ and ‘only want sensible gun safety reforms’.

      2. I think their hope must be that Biden can apologize, waffle, gaff, and hair sniff his way to the nomination and then offer reasonable “compromise” to the centrists. And of course not be Trump.

        Meanwhile the entire field of Democrats is a progressive playground.

  6. Booker wants all gun owners to get federal approval.
    2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    All gun laws are unconstitutional, especially INTRASTATE gun sales and ownership restrictions.

    The INTERSTATE Commerce Clause is the only potential means to regulate guns across state lines and the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits that.

    Luckily, Booker wont make it thru the Democrat primary.

    1. But his ideas or rather his handlers might. We cannot let a Dem win, or it is game over.

      1. It really is time to dispose of the progtards.

    2. “The INTERSTATE Commerce Clause is the only potential means to regulate guns across state lines and the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits that.”

      Sorry, no, that makes no sense. Since when does the IS Comm Clause regulate rights?

      1. Ideally, a tiny and limited federal government (as the Constitution lays out) would be able to regulate business between states.

        For example, selling guns (or butter) to someone in another state. The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate Interstate business. Ideally, in a limited manner.

        Normally gun and/or butter could be regulated across state lines. The 2A prohibits any regulation, laws, or infringement on the People’s right to keep and bear Arms.

  7. “Requiring universal background checks may sound great in theory”

    Does it?… to those who don’t and never plan to own a firearm maybe?

    1. It sounds good in theory if you are an idiot.

    2. I was wondering the same thing. Why does it sound any better than the current system?

    3. A universal INSTANT background check, if practical, might prevent a few folks who shouldn’t have guns from getting them. But, in reality, enforcing it is impossible (and one cannot force the States to enforce it, which makes it even more impossible). In short, it’s useless. Those who wish to avoid such a background check could easily do so, as they do now, in States which already have such laws.

      1. Who “shouldn’t have guns”?

        The 2A does not give such an exception, so background checks as an infringement of the people’s right to keep and bear Arms is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

        1. I tend to agree with you on that point. Comparing it to driver’s licensing, one can only lose the right to drive if one abuses the right or is negligent — for example, repeated DUIs, etc. And there are court precedents stating driving is a right (I won’t get into the details here).

          1. “And there are court precedents stating driving is a right (I won’t get into the details here)”

            Why not?

            Anyway, the rulings I have seen place driving squarely in the privilege category.

            1. “Why not?” Because SCOTUS hasn’t said it is. These were lower court decisions, mostly State courts. Far from an unfettered right, but still, there is precedence for calling it a “right.”

              It is not, currently, seen as a federally-protected right. It falls under the tenth amendment unless SCOTUS says something differently.

          2. “…one can only lose the right to drive…”

            Um, no. There is no right to drive. Driving on public roads is a privilege, which can be revoked. Your rights cannot be revoked.

            1. Your right to vote can also be lost, as can be your right to travel freely. The difference it, to lose those rights, one has to actually do something bad. Like commit a crime.

              There are some court cases, mostly State, which, while upholding the right drive, have also upheld that State’s right to require licensing for such. When it comes to the 2A, defined as a right by SCOTUS, that whole “close scrutiny” should overrule requiring a license since it amounts to prior restraint. I certainly don’t need a license to own a newspaper.

      2. Especially if those ‘few folks’ who shouldn’t own guns are all citizens of the USA, and all others within our borders.

      3. The other dirty secret is when people fail the background check — nobody is punished.

        People are violating gun laws in trying to buy them illegally and nothing is done to them.

        So, what good are MORE laws to be ignored?

    4. If you’re the common gun grabber who has never fired a gun and prefers to know nothing about them, you might think that I can just walk into a shop, buy a tactical nuke, and leave with it same day. Even if you’re a bit more reasonable than that, if you haven’t yet woken up to the reality that mainstream media is propaganda, you might believe that the ” gun show loophole” is an actual exploit of a law that we already agreed upon, as opposed to the private sale of firearms that has been Constitutionally enshrined since 1789.

  8. “just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible TO EXERCISE A GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTand can meet certain basic safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.

    Hmm…Something doesn’t seem quite right there.

    1. I know an awful lot of licensed drivers who fail the proficiency part yet still maintain their eligibility.

    2. Easy fix, make the Federal Firearm owners ID the only valid ID for voting. After all if it’s good for one right it’s good for all of them.

      1. And make it a carry permit for both open and concealed with no restrictions on location.

        We vote in schools.

    3. “TO EXERCISE A GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT”

      Forgive me. I take issue with that phrasing. 2A is a guarantee of a right, certainly. But the wording implies that the Constitution provides that right. That’s not what the Constitution does.

      The Constitution tells government what they are granted authority to do and, in some instances, what the government MAY NEVER DO.

      The bottom line, government has ZERO authority to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

      (Yeah, I know…)

      1. I know. But you know what I was getting at.

      2. That’s a fine, worthwhile distinction to make. But since the government is (in theory) constrained by the Constitution, and not by “natural rights” however defined, the constitutional rights are the relevant ones when talking about policy, even if they also happen to be natural rights.

    4. Having a license is just another way for the faceless bureaucrats in Washington to take your right to own away.

      1. You have a right to keep and bear arms, not to own them. Only the government should own guns.

        /Full Hihn

        1. Wrong. You have a right to keep and bear arms in common use at the time of the adoption of the BoR.

          /True Hihn.

          1. How are you writing this comment because I did not get a parchment written by feather dipped in ink?

          2. You have a right to keep and bear arms, not to own them. Only the government should own guns.

            /Full Hihn

            Wrong. You have a right to keep and bear arms in common use at the time of the adoption of the BoR.

            /True Hihn.

            Wrong. We have a collective right to keep and bear arms in the service of a militia organized by our respective State which militia cannot be abolished by the federal government.

            /Authoritative Hihn

        2. He must be doing hard time in a State Psych Hospital where they restrict access to the internet. Not so much as a sock in these many days.

          And his socks are immediately obvious.

          1. He has been oddly absent. Perhaps he’s writing the manifesto that all spree killers do before they snap.

          2. Given his age and exponentially increasing incoherence, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s now spending his time drooling all over himself in the day room of said hospital.

            I also wouldn’t be surprised if he got caught trying to get a little one-on-one time with one of the people on his enemies list. That guy just reeked of “eau de stalker”.

            1. Yes, he had quite an enemies list, many of whom appear on this blog.

    5. Also:
      – Driving license are issued by states
      – You don’t need one to drive a car on private property.
      – Lots of people still drive on public roads without a valid license.
      – Lots of people still use their cars to hurt and kill others (accidentally, negligently or deliberately) despite being licensed.

      It’s an asinine comparison for so many reasons.

      1. Also, owning a car does not require a license.

        And driving a car is not a right specifically enumerated in the f-ing Bill of Rights. With the words “shall not be infringed”.

        1. Technically you dont need registration to own a car nor a license to drive a car…on your own property.

          Once you drive on public roads, the legal logic is that government gets a say. Ideally, very limited (i.e. Rule of the Road).

          The 2A was added because nearly every Founding Father knew government would try and take guns away just like the British wanted to. Some Founders just thought the restrictions of the Constitution were enough and others wanted it spelled out in the BoR.

          1. No registration, but Virginia still requires a title for operable motor vehicles even if not used on public roads.

            1. How often is anyone prosecuted in Virginia for possessing an untitled vehicle if they never take it out onto the public road? Titles are mainly for proving that you didn’t steal the car your in possession of.

          2. Technically you don’t need registration to own a car nor a license to drive a car…on your own property.”

            However in California a mobil home has to be registered with the DMV every year even when on your own property. Why because it was on the road one time

      2. “”Driving license are issued by states”‘

        Thanks to the Real ID act. They have become a federal ID not just a drivers license, albeit one issued by the state.

        1. Montana it is voluntary. You can get a real ID or the regular state ID. If you choose the latter, you need a passport to fly, though.

    6. And you don’t need a license to own or buy a car, or to use it on private property.

      1. +1

        Beat me to it.

      2. And, not all motor-vehicles require the driver to be licensed or the vehicle to be registered. Farm equipment is, generally. notably absent of those requirements.

        1. Yet they are a common sight on the roadways.

  9. he can’t truly believe he’ll win on gun control.

    1. Sure he does, everyone he knows loves gun control. How could that possibly not be enough?

    2. Yes, Democrats ARE that stupid. Results of living too long in an echo chamber.

      1. Such is their silo, which consists of most of the West and Northeast coasts. They are always the smartest guys in their room.

    3. What he likely believes is that Trump is unpopular enough that he’ll with despite it, and then can use having run on it as legitimizing going through with it.

      Mind, he’s delusional about getting the nomination, but every time one of these wack jobs sounds off, they make the only slightly less insane wack jobs seem less awful. “Moving the Overton window.”

      1. >>>he’s delusional about getting the nomination

        bottom line.

  10. Booker doesn’t know what a right is.

    Try to do this kind of thing with any other right in the Bill of Rights.

    1. There is not much left in the Bill of Rights that is sacred. States rights are a joke, and unlawful search is a thing of the pre-9/11 past. Free speech is on its way out.

      1. Yes but do we just let them prattle on without confrontation? Spartacus is dangerously stupid like Swalwell. The rest are just plain dangerous.

  11. Booker’s campaign compares buying a gun to driving a car, arguing that “just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain basic safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”

    Once again: Treating guns “just like cars” would result in the end of most current gun control laws.
    –All you do to get the license is pass a written and simple operator’s test, and the license is “shall issue.”
    –License renewal consists of filing a renewal request and a vision test.
    –The license is reciprocal across state lines.
    –You can buy any gun you want across state lines, without undergoing a background check, and from any private party you wish.

    1. -Use any gun you like on private property.
      -Own as many guns as you like of any caliber or ammunition capacity.
      -Private and personal use guns below a given caliber and with modified emissions compliance will be broadly allowed in public.
      -Greater licenses for enhanced capacity, caliber, and emissions will given on a ‘shall issue’ basis.
      Specialty guns of arbitrary capacity, caliber or emissions being used in conducting private agricultural business are acceptable without license so long as the ammunition is taxed appropriately.

    2. You don’t need a driver’s license to buy a car. I have a friend who has been legally blind all his adult life and has never had a driver;s license. Yet he has owned a number of vehicles.

  12. As far as the “licensing” bit for “safety,” I don’t actually have a problem with that (though it’s no business of the feds. In theory. But this isn’t about safety. This also ignores the fact that accidental firearms deaths are a fraction of what they were twenty or thirty years ago,

    Every five years? I used to live in CA. It has a similar law. Comparing it to DL requirements is beyond ridiculous. I haven’t taken a behind-the-wheel test in nearly 50 years. I hadn’t taken a written test in since 1983. (I did take a written test earlier this year when I moved to a new State)

    These “safety tests” have nothing to do with safety: they are just and attempt to make firearms more difficult and more expensive to obtain.

    1. Dems idea of gun safety is confiscation plain and simple. Mine is hitting the target. I don’t have a problem with the NRA offering safety courses but it should be compulsory any more than voting should require a poll tax.

      1. Mine is hitting the target.
        Effective gun control leads to tight shot groups.

        1. Empty soda cans at 400 yards are my favorite measure of “gun control.” 🙂

    2. Does licensing really improve safety, though? It doesn’t for occupational licensing.

      1. In the case of guns, it actually would – they’d make sure that you needed a PhD in ballistic physics to pass the written test.

        1. And then the black market for guns would go nuts and it’d be like alcohol prohibition again, except the guns would be both the product and the business expedient.

      2. It cannot be shown that licensing has any effect on safety or on the homicide rate. I did say “in theory.” There are three basic rules to gun safety, maybe as many as ten if one is really ocd. Beyond that, it’s all about discouraging firearms ownership. So lets make sure that everyone knows those three basic rules. That should take about fifteen seconds and cost about 2 cents for the photocopy of them.

  13. This was probably a great idea that came to Cory’s mind while he was having pillow talk with Rosario, the one true love of his life.

  14. What part of the Second Amendment does he not understand. Also, this is NOT like driving a car, as there is no Driving a Car Amendment, nor is there such a thing as a Federal Driving License.

    What a maroon.

    1. “nor is there such a thing as a Federal Driving License.”
      YET

  15. We all know that when progs say “control” about anything, what they really mean is prohibition. Only thing that will satisfy them is when there are zero privately owned guns left in the world. Have they ever stopped to think that maybe they are part of the problem? Mass shootings were very rare until Columbine about 20 years ago and most of the shooters are millennials, you know, the generation brought up by progressive educators to believe that they are the greatest ever.

    1. Mass shootings are just an excuse to confiscate guns.

      Camden, New Jersey, a city with about 74,000 people, there were 47 murders in 2016 (the latest full year for which FBI data is available)
      Newark had 77 murder in 2016.

      My town had ZERO murders. Ever. Most of its residents have tons of guns.

      1. Honestly, I would not get rid of the constitutional protection for all Arms even if there were a thousand mass shootings a day.

        History is full of examples of governments that disarmed their citizens and killed far more of their own people, than every death from a mass shooting in the USA.

        There are some 63 million Americans that voted for Trump that Lefties would murder if they could.

    2. Mass shooting happened before Columbine. Just that the media didn’t report on them with the intensity they do now.

    3. Mass shootings were very rare until Columbine about 20 years ago”

      mass shooting have always been around remember the phrase going postal after several people shot up post offices then there was the string of mass shooting at McDonalds now people are shooting up schools, soon the phrase will be “going scholastic on their asses” and the idea that church shootings are a new thing, no churches have been under attack since the first church was formed.

  16. Corey Booker wants attention and free publicity in the media, and he’s willing to say whatever it takes to get it.

    Whether we should pay attention to these Trump 2016 tactics is another matter.

    Has Booker already stooped to outrageous tweets?

    1. The man’s stooped to using Rosario Dawson as his beard. There’s nothing he won’t do.

      1. His favorite hang out is 1 Raymond Plaza W, Newark, NJ… Stall #3.

  17. after which the license-holder could freely purchase and own firearms.

    Except for all the onerous regulations he proposes on gun sales after the person has already complied with this license requirement

    1. Which can always be revoked depending on the whim of the latest progressive nitwit in charge from either party.

  18. You know he’s all ’bout that base

  19. But Booker wants to close the supposed “gun-show loophole,”

    I’d like to close the “politician’s loophole,” a length of rope with a politician’s neck in it. Readily available, easy to use, and cheaper than a woodchipper.

  20. Proper headline:
    “Corey Booker continues the Democrat’s attack on the constitution”

  21. Booker is operating on a principle near and dear to his heart:
    Cattle don’t have a right to self defense.

  22. If something is a “bad idea in practice”, then it is also a bad idea in theory

    1. That may be true in theory, but how does it work in practice?

      1. I’m sure it won’t work in practice. Canada tried a gun registry who was supposed to cost only 10 millions $ but ended to cost 1 billion $.

        I wonder if we could ask to Cory Booker if he’ll practice gun smuggling and gun trafficking like the ex-senator Leland Lee?

  23. Booker’s campaign compares buying a gun to driving a car, arguing that “just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car

    pretty obvious that those on his campaign haven’t driven on the roads in NJ or anywhere else lately. a driver’s license may be used as ID to write a check or get on an airplane, but it sure doesn’t establish proficiency of drivers, unless the vast majority are unlicensed.

    1. I wonder how much time Booker actually spends in DC. Just driving through DC makes is clear that having a DL and knowing how to drive is two very different things.

      1. DC has a lot of transplants bringing the worst driving habits into a melting pot of suck. Add some inclement weather and the suck factor goes to 11.

  24. The whole thing is illegal, tyrannical and unworkable.

    1. And it would do nothing to stop violence.

    2. “”The whole thing is illegal, tyrannical and unworkable.””

      Jackie Chiles?

  25. God the Democrats are such insufferable, faux-principled, totalitarian shit stains.

  26. A gun license?
    No, thanks.
    I know how to use a firearm properly.
    Besides, only those who are politically connected will be able to get one, so that would eliminate 99% of the gun ownership in the US which is what Booker and all the other gun grabbers want.

  27. Listen Up commie nut job ===

    From My Cold Dead Hands

    From My Cold Dead Hands !!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORYVCML8xeE

  28. Marxists who infect our government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
    No matter what any politician or hard-left mainstream media tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..
    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.
    Ask the six million J ews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the N azi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.
    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    American Thinker

  29. Marxists who infect our government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
    No matter what any politician or hard-left mainstream media tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..
    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.

  30. How many ways can you say “unconstitutional”?

  31. Another statist trying to determine incentive structures for the marketplace. How stupid do you have to be to think that gun manufacturers have no interest in making guns safer? Have you not been paying attention to all the non-lethal weapons that have been improved over the past 25 years? Or ongoing research into smart-gun technology? Booker needs to stop watching Spartacus and start paying attention to reality.

  32. Nothing more than more Liberal “gun control” fever.

  33. What’s T-Bone’s position?
    If this is what Cory thinks the Constitution says, Yale needs to get its Law Degree back.

  34. RIP Cory Booker’s presidential campaign. I am going to enjoy seeing all of the stupid things Democrats come up with because they still think they can win in ’20…only to flop again.

    Democrats are closet Trump fans. Doing all they can to ensure he’s re-elected.

  35. Maybe he should worry about the shootings committed by his “brothers” before he worries about us.

  36. More than half of the United State’s citizens are now welfare rats.
    That means….
    Stop arguing.
    Give them your guns.
    Take your “free” shit.
    Enjoy your collective benefits.
    And for Fuck’s sake, stop your bitching when they kill off your family.

  37. I’ll keep my natural rights Mr. Booker.

  38. Heh! Spartacus! No one take this fool serious.

  39. Is this more of the magical thinking behind “We cannot POSSIBLY deport 30M illegals…but seizing ten times more guns is doable”?

  40. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. […]

  41. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. […]

  42. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. […]

  43. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. But it […]

  44. Well, since Booker obviously does not see this as an infringement of anyone’s constitutional rights, I suggest we also introduce mandatory federal licenses for voting and running for office; those licenses should include a criminal background check and a verification of citizenship. How about it. Mr. Booker?

  45. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. […]

  46. […] list of gun control ideas that Cory Booker unveiled yesterday includes that hoary favorite, a ban on “assault weapons,” whatever those are. […]

  47. I am in my third year of an apprenticeship as a tool and die maker. I chose a career in precision machining after seeing Cody Wilson here in Reason magazine. So, thanks Reason! You guys might not have fired Dalima or Richman yet, but on this at least you didn’t screw up.

    Now, I just wanted to say that I WILL NOT COMPLY with any further gun control laws.

    I currently make guns for my own personal use from 80% receivers. Since the government might attempt to shut that avenue down, though, a co worker and I are designing other guns that we can make with the tools we own. You see, as professionals we buy our own metal working and metrology tools for use at work. Since we own these tools outright there is nothing under current law the government can do to stop us from also using those tools to make guns for our own use on our own time. We have the skills necessary to design and build literally any thing on earth we want. We regularly design and build plastic injection molds at work. These machines are far more complex than any firearm, and require machining to much more precise dimensions. We also design and build other types of industrial tooling and therefore are basically skilled welders and fabricators as well as machinists. We regularly work with all kinds of materials from wood to plastics to tool steels. Given the complexity of the machines we build, and the precision required to do so, I have to say firearms really are easy to build. Laughably so.

    Furthermore I have modified my 80% lower jig to guide the placement of the auto sear pin hole which must be drilled out to convert an AR15 lower into a select fire capable M16. I also have the M16 FCG pocket dimensions so that I can complete the conversion. In fact, I have found blueprints online for dozens of other firearms, including several machine guns. All I need is a little motivation, some unknowable push, and my circumnavigation of the current law just might turn into open violation therof. Any further gun control passed federally just might cause me to start cranking out machine guns and machine gun receivers by the dozen and just giving them away. Maybe. Perhaps.

    I can say with certainty that I believe it a moral obligation to break unjust laws. Perhaps the U.S. Government will push me to that point. (on this issue at least…) I’d prefer we not find out.

  48. Comparing gun rights to a drivers license is apples to oranges.
    A drivers license is considered a privilege.
    The right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.

  49. Sure, let’s do the same for the First Amendment. Federal licensing (good for five years), universal background checks, banning certain kinds of politically incorrect speech, three-day waiting periods, Red Flag laws—the whole thing. See how far that goes.

Please to post comments