Gun Control

What's Wrong With Licensing Gun Owners?

Cory Booker’s plan would unjustly deprive peaceful Americans of the fundamental right to armed self-defense.

|

Cory Booker says the gun control ideas he unveiled on Monday are necessary "to make justice a reality for all." But the New Jersey senator's plan, which he touts as "the most sweeping gun violence prevention proposal ever advanced by a presidential candidate," would unjustly deprive peaceful Americans of the fundamental right to armed self-defense.

At the center of Booker's plan is a federal licensing system that would require would-be gun owners to "submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course" before they could exercise their Second Amendment rights. The process also would include a "comprehensive background check" by the FBI to make sure the applicant is legally allowed to possess firearms.

Booker says "many states" license gun owners. But according to David Kopel, a gun policy expert at Denver's Independence Institute, only three states—Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—impose that requirement for all types of firearms, as Booker wants to do at the federal level. Last year a circuit judge in Illinois deemed that state's licensing system inconsistent with the Second Amendment in a case that is headed for the Illinois Supreme Court.

Booker likens the licensing of gun owners to the licensing of car drivers, which is not handled by the federal government, generally does not apply to the operation of vehicles on private property, and does not involve a specifically enumerated constitutional right. In fact, states commonly refer to driving on public roads as a "privilege," which gives you a sense of how Booker views gun ownership.

Booker's says licensing gun owners, combined with "universal background checks" for gun sales, license renewal every five years, and "regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms," would "keep guns out of the wrong hands." But exactly which hands are "wrong" is a contentious issue.

Current federal law unfairly and unreasonably prohibits gun possession by broad classes of people who have shown no inclination to assault others, including cannabis consumers, people convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever been involuntarily treated for suicidal impulses. To the extent that Booker's licensing system improves enforcement of those wrongheaded bans, it will magnify the injustice they inflict.

That's assuming the records on which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) relies to determine who is allowed to own guns are complete and accurate. "Booker's proposal presumes that the federal government is competent to operate a licensing system for gun owners," Kopel observes, "and to not prosecute lawful owners when the government loses the records of their licensing." He thinks that's highly unlikely, given "the fiasco of ATF recordkeeping" related to the national registry of machine guns and other products restricted by the National Firearms Act.

Booker's plan would not necessarily create a national gun registry, but it would by design create a federal database of gun owners. It is not difficult to imagine how that information might be abused by malign, incompetent, or firearm-fearing officials.

Booker himself is hardly immune to the temptations of power. Like his Senate colleague Kamala Harris, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, he promises to accomplish by "executive action" what Congress declines to do through legislation.

That includes "closing dangerous loopholes in gun sales," such as the three-day limit on mandatory background checks, the private-sale exemption from the background check requirement, and the definition of "domestic violence" misdemeanors that disqualify people from owning firearms. Whatever the merits of those rules, they are set forth in statutes that can be changed only by Congress.

In trying to impose new gun restrictions by presidential fiat, Booker would be imitating Donald Trump, who demanded an administrative ban on bump stocks that required twisting the statutory definition of machine guns beyond recognition. It is telling that Booker believes voters who are appalled by Trump's power grabs would welcome a Democratic president who thinks he can ignore the law as long as they like his policies.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: How Independent Journalists Are Beating the Mainstream Media

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.

  1. Why is Corey Booker always using hand gestures to indicate his penis size when the photographers show up?

    1. Yes and they are the most dangerous kind. Imbeciles who parade as caring lawmakers. Corey is desperate to get his %’s up. So when he isn’t looking for a hook up in a Bus station he is grabbing for ways to stick out from the pack which includes shredding the constitution. There is nothing in his gun control proposal that speaks to anything less than total gun confiscation by isolating and criminalizing legal gun owners. He will ensure the next steps will include penalties for owners, dealers and manufacturers. His pillow buddy the incredibly dim witted Eric Swalwell at least is more transparent as he is advocating hard prison time for non compliance with what is clearly unconstitutional policies. We need to admit the progressives will shred what is left of the Constitution if they take office in 2020. I don’t believe this is an exaggeration.

      1. the incredibly dim witted Eric Swalwell at least is more transparent as he is advocating hard prison time for non compliance

        And radioactivity. Don’t forget he’s also advocating radioactivity for non-compliance!

    2. Let’s at least take a moment to honor the SACRIFICE of our brave school children who lay down their lives to protect our precious right to bear arms. Maybe someday, geneticists will figure out a way to give the American male a dick big enough that he won’t have to carry guns around to prove his manhood (to himself).

  2. But exactly which hands are “wrong” is a contentious issue.

    The wrong hands are private hands of course.

    Read between the lines Jacob.

    1. I plead the fifth on whether or not I closed that tag.

      1. 5th Amendment claimants must submit to a background check and an aura reading, then acquire one fresh liter of the blood of a teenage virgin to be fed to appropriate officials, prior to the time of each claim.

        1. I mean, that’s just common sense!

  3. Lots of gun grabbers traveling with armed escorts.

    1. Presumably those escorts have licenses, so it’s OK under this plan. Regular folk who can’t afford properly licensed and bonded security are out of luck, though.

      1. I held a private armed security job in VA and DC a few decades ago. Even with licensing, we could only carry on duty in DC. Thankfully, we operated out of Arlington, so it really didn’t affect me.

        1. Did you ever violate DC law by transporting a firearm across the Wilson Bridge? It briefly transits part of the Potomac in DC.

  4. Gun humpers love to ignore the words ‘well regulated’, & also to pretend that they don’t willingly submit to the ‘tyranny’ of driver’s licenses and car insurance.

    “Ignorance isn’t blind, it just won’t look!”

    1. “Well-regulated” had a very different meaning when the 2A was written. Just because the common definition has changed over time doesn’t change the intent of the 2A.

      Also a “militia” at the time was all able bodied men. They had no formal agreement to fight and were expected to provide their own weapons which were suitable for fighting.

      1. Chaos, reading gun industry propaganda can leave distinctive marks on people’s opinions, which bystanders have long since learned to recognize. No doubt you have been exposed to persuasive-looking accounts purporting to tell what this nation’s gun history has been. Problem is, you can’t parrot that stuff back without also demonstrating you haven’t read the actual historical records from the time of the founding. Taken as a whole, those records don’t say what you have been told they say.

        Just for starters, the historical record is full of references to the militia, as justification for the 2A. The record abounds with them. But no one so far has come up with even a single quotation from any founder declaring a purpose of personal self-defense for the 2A. Not one. If any such thing existed, it would have been the very first citation in Heller, but it isn’t there, anywhere in the opinion. You should think that over.

        As for what “well-regulated” meant with regard to militias in the founding era, that’s a complicated question which requires more historical reading, and another instance for which you shouldn’t rely on gun industry propaganda. But if you read founding era records—or even just present-day scholarly biographies of folks like Washington and Hamilton—you will discover that “well-regulated” had built into it an irreducible component of “use under military discipline.” Stuff to the contrary which your comment relies upon comes mostly from remarks by anti-federalists—remarks later cherry-picked out of context by gun propagandists. Anti-federalist history is important, and can’t be dismissed. But that falls far short of the complete historical picture, and it distorts history on purpose.

        Maybe you like all those pro-gun, pseudo-historical sources the gun industry puts out. Maybe they suit your politics and your preferences. That’s all fine. You are entitled to your opinions, and to your political advocacy, and even to your sketchy understanding of history. We all are. Just don’t pretend your opinions are especially sanctified by history. Even if those opinions were accurately historical, and they aren’t, they couldn’t in any way elevate the value of your political opinions about gun policy over those of any of your opponents.

        1. If not for the individual who is responsible for personal self defense and how is that best accomplished? The government cannot be held responsible for my personal safety.

          If it was not for individual ownership of weapons suitable for warfare the American Revolution would have failed. The founders wanted to ensure the government would never be more powerful than the People.

          My Individual gun ownership harms no one. Criminals do. The percentage of guns which do are very small. People need to stop going after the tool. Group punishment of the innocent never works.

          1. He wants to make you a criminal with the snap of a finger.

            As they say, willingly giving up your constitutional right to armed self defense is like castrating yourself because you feel your neighbor has too many children.

          2. Have you read at all Federalist #46 and understand what it means? Madison is talking about why the right to bear arms is important-it keeps from being terrified of military authority, because the number of armed citizens able to resist the tyranny of a federal government would outnumber any standing army by an order of magnitude.

            He uses the word “militia” in terms of how many men would be able to bear arms, arms they own themselves, and isn’t talking about a specific force held in reserve for that scenario. It’s clear from his context when you read that.

            1. Lathrop hasn’t read anything except Communist Manifesto.

        2. Literally nothing in your word salad shitpost is accurate.

          1. I was accurate when I asserted that no one has found in the historical record any quote from any founder declaring a personal self-defense purpose for the 2A. If I’m mistaken Red Rocks, prove me wrong. But before you try, please re-read what I just said carefully, as if every word mattered.

            You won’t have any trouble finding historical references from that era to arms for self-defense. What you can’t find is any proof that the founders intended to constitutionalize guns for any purpose except the militia.

            That doesn’t mean the founders opposed self-defense. It does probably mean they left self-defense with guns out of the Constitution on purpose. But that’s speculation, not history. If you want to claim history, you have to find the proof in the historical record. Good luck. If you succeed you will be famous.

            1. This is just sophistry.

              You won’t have any trouble finding historical references from that era to arms for self-defense. What you can’t find is any proof that the founders intended to constitutionalize guns for any purpose except the militia.

              That you can’t see the inherent contradiction in these statements is why the gun control crowd can’t be taken seriously. The founders had no reason to “Constitutionalize” something that was already a common-law practice in the former colonies, and an implicit benefit of allowing private citizens to own their own firearms, particularly on the frontier where families were more isolated and in greater personal danger.

              But you don’t have to take my word for it. There are plenty of references here.

            2. In this case, Thomas Paine utilizes the idea of armed individual as the reason for a nation to be armed.

              “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
              – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

            3. declaring a personal self-defense purpose for the 2A.

              Irrelevant. The government is granted certain authorities and expressly prohibited from doing certain things. One of the things it is prohibited from engaging in is general disarmament.

            4. Self-defense is somewhat immaterial, as the point of the 2nd amendment to ensure that the people can preserve a “free state”. Having just overthrown an oppressive government by force of arms, the Founders were pretty clear that the people must always have that ability in case the government they–the Founders–were initiating would ever reach King George-level oppression.

              “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

              “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

              “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

            5. https://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

              The text was originally “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person” but was rearranged by committee to try to tighten up the language.

              Alternative proposed texts were

              “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

              “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

              “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection.

              Again, self-defense is a red-herring. The 2nd protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, in case the Militia (all the people) need to use those arms against the government.

            6. The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

              The house went into a committee of the whole, on the subject of amendments. The 3d clause of the 4th proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows; “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.

              Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.

            7. Mr Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: “A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from the necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses.”

              The dislike of sanding armies was clear in many writings, and the armed populace–the militia–being at least as well armed and greatly outnumbering the army, was the natural balance against them.

            8. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
              – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

              Jefferson touches upon self-defense

              “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

              Jefferson also urges being armed essentially at all times

              “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

              “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

            9. Avoiding the self-defense red-herring, keep and bearing arms was simply expected, and the fear was that government might try to take them from the people.

              “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

              “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

              “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
              – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

              “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
              – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

              Again, Americans are armed, simply as a matter of course…and States can fight the Federal government…

              “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
              – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

              “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
              – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

            10. Thomas Paine touches upon self-defense and defense of property.

              “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
              – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

              And lest anyone be unclear:

              “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
              – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

              “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
              – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

              “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
              – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

              1. I believe the youts called what mpercy did to Mr. Lathrop REKT.

        3. The “well regulated” part is kind of a distraction. The amendment still says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          1. the militia is regulated not the arms beared and those regulations covering the Militia are in the constitution. Furthur if they wanted to make sure only the militia would have the right to bear arms it would have said the “right of the militia” not “the right of the people” which is all people including women not just the men who are in the militia

            1. the militia is regulated not the arms beared

              That too. Gun-grabbers don’t do grammar and diction.

        4. Someone doesn’t understand “the right of the people” means.

        5. Lathrop criticizes Chaos for “reading gun industry propaganda” without any evidence of self-awareness of how he has biased himself through his own highly selective readings and citations.

          Lathrop also engages in a bit of strawmannery, spending an entire paragraph on a ‘militia =/= self-defense’ argument that nobody in this thread actually made.

        6. For Stephen Lathrop: given that several States already license at least certain types of gun owners, and CA, through it’s combination of laws, effectively licenses all gun owners, has a gun registry, and lots of other things, what actual, relevant, evidence do you have that something good will come out of a “national firearms license?”

          1. The fact that it is almost unheard of for anyone to get machine gunned in this country would be a start.

            1. It’s also almost unheard of for anyone to get killed by a 50 BMG. Why? Cause they are expensive and heavy. Just like machine guns.

              Now, given Occam’s Razor, which is the more simple explanation?

            2. “The fact that it is almost unheard of for anyone to get machine gunned in this country would be a start.”

              Is that directed towards my question? Not sure. If it is, what does that have to do with anything?

            3. The last people to get “machine gunned” were probably in Gangland Chicago, circa 1930s.

              Semi-automatic weapons, like Glock 9mm handguns and AR-15 look-alikes are not machine guns.

            4. So? Almost as unlikely to get assault-rifled.

              1. Yeah, given who wrote the original sentence, I mis-read it as “When we finally have people not being machine gunned, that will be progress.” and was making the typical anti-gunner mistake of calling semi-automatics “machine guns”.

                My bad.

        7. Psuedo historical like the Belleseiles book that when confronted on his research, he claimed his notes had all been destroyed in a flood? Psuedo historical like when gun grabbers seem to neglect to mention that virtually every gun control law out there was originally aimed at minorities-freed blacks and new immigrants?
          Frankly, I doubt a single founding father would have ever considered preventing people from owning firearms for self defense, hence why it is not mentioned. What is mentioned is the necessity of an armed population in order to prevent a tyrannical govt, which is why the left is so hell bent on gun bans.

          1. Your second paragraph seems out of line with history. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that the slave holders among the founders wouldn’t have considered denying arms to slaves.

            If you think that over for a moment, and don’t mind speculating about history (which I usually don’t recommend), you might find a pretty sound-looking hypothetical reason for why the founders didn’t put armed self-defense in the 2A. Maybe they thought it preferable to leave that question for different states to regulate according to their different customs and institutions.

            1. Or, maybe, they thought that people could read and think. Maybe they thought people knew history.

              They were wrong, but that was before the time of government schools.

            2. “Your second paragraph seems out of line with history. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that the slave holders among the founders wouldn’t have considered denying arms to slaves.”
              Bullshit justified by non-sequitur.
              Are you here to prove how stupid you are? You’re doing well.

            3. So now you read minds of those long-dead? Amazing.

        8. Maybe this one?

          “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

        9. Stephen Lathrop
          May.8.2019 at 4:09 am
          “Chaos, reading gun industry propaganda can leave distinctive marks on people’s opinions, which bystanders have long since learned to recognize….”

          Fortunately, reading lefty idiots causes no residue.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        10. Stephen Lathrop
          May.8.2019 at 4:09 am

          Moron or dishonest…

          Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
          “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

          Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
          “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

          James Madison, of Virginia:
          The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

          George Mason, of Virginia:
          I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

          1. “Moron or dishonest…”
            Yes.
            He posts here irregularly, but every post is verbose beyond required to make the claim, dishonest most always, and nothing other than lefty bullshit repackaged.

        11. In this thread Stephen gets destroyed once again for every basis of incoherent drivel he writes. .

          In next thread Stephen once again forgets every explicit argument made against his incoherent drivel.

          Stay stupid my friend.

        12. What MOST anti-gunners don’t understand is that the term “Well-regulated” does NOT mean GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED! Jules Verne used the term in his book “Around the world in 80 days” and it referred to how Fogg’s house was in such good working order because he was very organized – “his house was well-regulated.” In the 2nd Amendment it means that everyone who’s a member of the militia needs to have a weapon, ammo, know how to use it and have a basic military knowledge (formations, tactics, etc.) But the fact that militias are mentioned does NOT override the fact that, the right of the PEOPLE shall NOT be INFRINGED.

    2. If there was a great degree of commonality between this kind of proposed gun legislation and licensing of drivers you might have a point. But contemplate whether the people who argue “We should license guns just like we license cars” would welcome national reciprocity, free use of guns on private property, and so on.

      1. … being legal to operate one on the public streets beginning age 16.

        1. License issued on passing a written test with 10 extremely easy questions, plus (maybe) firing off 10 rounds at a shooting range without endangering the range officer.

    3. “Well regulated” modifies “the militia”, not “the right to keep and bear arms”.

      1. Nor does it modify “the right of the people”.

    4. “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”
      https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

    5. If the first amendment said “an informed population is necessaryt for smart voters, freedom of the press shall not be infringed” would you assume that freedom of the press only applies to informing people about voting? Actually, probably given the leftist view of free speech these days.
      In order for there to be a militia, people need to be armed. Even the SCOTUS said that in Miller vs US regarding the 1934 NFA. Using that logic, assault weapons OMG! are protected but Biden guns are not.
      And what is it about lefties that they hear the word gun and immediately think sex?

    6. You don’t need a driver’s license to purchase a car. I have a friend who is legally blind and he owns two vehicles. There’s also no insurance requirement if you keep it on private property. Driver’s licenses, plates and title certificates are “shall issue” and are issued in most states by officials accountable to the voters.

      Personally, I wouldn’t mind guns being regulated like cars: No license, insurance, etc. if you keep them at home; “shall issue” concealed carry permits (from state, not national authorities) for public carry. But of course, that’s not what Booker is proposing.

      1. its a right you don’t have to have a license to vote or to go to church or to associate or to travel or to be free from searches . Rights don’t need to be licensed and neither does the 2A that would be an infringement.

    7. Gun-grabbers conveniently overlook the historical context and meaning of the term “regulated”. Here is an education for you: “regulated” means functioning.

    8. Tronald_Dump
      May.8.2019 at 1:21 am
      “Gun humpers love to ignore the words ‘well regulated’, & also to pretend that they don’t willingly submit to the ‘tyranny’ of driver’s licenses and car insurance. ”

      Lefty ignoramuses ignore A2.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    9. “Well regulated” meant well “practiced” when the 2nd was written. Anyone who’s studied the language is fully aware of this, except for the those coming for our guns. They’re conveniently ignorant.

  5. If they really wanted to lower gun violence they would end drug prohibition.

    1. If they wanted to end the “crisis” at the border, they would end drug prohibition. If they wanted to reduce civilian-cop interactions that often end badly, they would end drug prohibition. If they wanted to reduce drug overdoses….

      1. All true. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the federal law against Marijuana was conceived of as a ‘full employment for out of work Prohibition agents’ measure.

        We shoulda just let them retire on full salary. It would have been cheaper.

    2. If they wanted to significantly reduce gun deaths, they could start by making committing suicide by gun a capital offense. That severe penalty will certainly dissuade anyone from doing that, right?

      1. Yeah! Would anyone try to commit suicide, knowing the penalty for doing so would be death by a firing squad? That’s bound to scare them away from breaking the law.

  6. Agree about the executive order objections.

    Disagree with everything else. Especially about dismissal of the comparison to licensed driving. It’s true that the comparison with run-of-the-mill driver’s licenses isn’t apt. But comparison to federally-regulated CDLs (commercial driver’s licenses) is largely on target. And federal CDL requirements are notably more onerous than anything anyone (including Booker) is proposing for gun owners. It’s all there, and more: written tests, performance tests, fingerprinting, periodic criminal background checks, annual (applicant paid) physical exams from federally certified practitioners, daily paper work, insurance requirements and mandatory inspections for equipment owners, random drug testing up to four times a year. For a more extreme case, check out school bus driver licensing, which is basically CDL, plus whatever extras a state heaps on.

    That leaves the debate about rights vs. “privileges” (which are also, somehow, necessities.) Maybe that’s not a clear picture, but it takes an extreme (and historically negligent) gun rights extremist to dismiss the comparison as irrelevant.

    1. I am neither “historically negligent” nor “extreme” in my views, but I will gladly dismiss your comparison.

      Guns and cars are not the same; they are not even remotely similar.

      No one but AOC [to my knowledge] has proposed banning cars, or even specific kinds of cars that go to fast or hold too much fuel. And yet we are treated to a daily harangue of what “other developed nations do” in regard to “gun safety.” I do not wish to live in a country managed in this regard like Great Britain or Australia, thank you. Licensing for the exercise enumerated in the Bill of Rights [which says nothing about cars or other conveyances, by the way] and registration of individual weapons would provide nothing less than a road map to confiscation, as soon as a particular party has enough power and control to enforce such.

      So, take all of your historical commentary on the meaning of the Second Amendment and the reasonableness of licensing and just pucker up and kiss my ass.

      Oh yeah, lest I forget, fuck off slaver.

      1. There are all sorts of cosmetics you can add to a car to make it look like it goes faster than it does. No one is proposing we ban them in the name of stopping speeders.

        1. And he can suck my “hangy down thing” too.

    2. Wow, I did not know there was a constitutional right to a “commercial driver’s license” or to “drive a school bus.”

    3. A CDL is typically required for employment, not for everyday use by ordinary citizens, you deliberately obtuse sack of shit.

    4. “”That leaves the debate about rights vs. “privileges””‘

      This is an idiots debate. It’s for people that don’t know the difference nor under that the bill of rights is not a bill of privileges.

      1. under = understand.

        Yeah an edit button would be nice, or perhaps proofreading.

    5. CDLs are for commercial use and even then, only specifically regulated commercial uses. And you don’t need a CDL to purchase and own a truck, merely to operate it on public roads. If you wish to put an 18 wheeler on your own property and drive it all day long, the govt won’t ask you for a license. Booker’s plan doesn’t grant you any rights except to own the firearm-you can’t carry it concealed, carry it in other states, carry and use it in a professional setting (private security/asset or VIP protection).

    6. CDL licenses are arguably interstate commerce and thus subject to Congressional regulation. Booker wants to require licenses of people who already possess guns. Can mere possession, not manufacture, transfer, or use, be plausibly characterized as “substantially affecting interstate commerce”? I look forward to some interesting commerce clause jurisprudence if Booker gets his legislation.

    7. I’d like to see people applying for welfare benefits to have to undergo the same regimen that CCW applicant have to go through. Multiple photo ID to prove citizenship and legal residence, fingerprinting, being photographed again, intrusive questionnaire, wants-and-warrants check, background check.

      If nothing else, the resulting welfare ID card would be accepted for voter ID.

  7. But requiring people to have an ID to vote is racist.

    1. +100

    2. It’s only racist when it applies to civil rights protect by the Constitution, oh wait…

  8. I don’t necessarily have a problem with licensing gun-owners – as part of a “well-regulated” militia, there should be some sort of training required for purchase – as long as the licensing is handled by the 2nd Amendment Foundation and not the government. “Gun control” means you can consistently hit center mass at 15 feet.

    1. “well-regulated” in the Constitution means well trained or in proper working order.

      Lefties are such liars that they actually advocate that the 2A was added just to give government control over guns.

      1. Yup. Regular soldiers and irregular soldiers were called such for a reason.

    2. “”as long as the licensing is handled by the 2nd Amendment Foundation and not the government.”‘

      But what purpose does licensing gun-owners serve?
      Licensing schemes are always about the ability to apply a punitive measure by the government. Don’t play by their rules, you lose your license.

  9. I wonder if he can make contingent on a Booker Test the exercise of any other enumerated constitutional rights. Perhaps one can only legally obtain an abortion if she is able to prove she cannot parent the child at the time. Or maybe one cannot enjoy the right to free health care unless he can provide proof that he did not make wrong budgeting choices like purchasing unhealthy foods or tobacco products.

    1. I’ve actually heard certain proponents say that is part of the reason they want universal healthcare, because when the government pays the bill it gives them the justification to ensure everyone is living healthy, and thus they can ban smoking, or unhealthy foods

      1. It’s all about step one…more to follow.

        Or as VP “Shotgun” Joe said following the gun control proposals following Newtown, “this is just the beginning.”

  10. Booker is only proposing step 1 to know where the guns are until they can be confiscated by government. If you don’t turn them in a knock on the door in the middle of the night…..

    1. Middle of the night gun confiscations would turn out badly for the government, here in the United States. Not much of the population knows their history, but a lot of the serious gun owners do.

      1. Once they know who owns the guns, they can go with much more effective measures, like making all sorts of government benefits and services contingent on not having any recorded guns not turned in.

        The records show you haven’t turned in your guns? Oops, we can’t mail that tax refund check. And forget about collecting social security…

        Mind, I think the left would probably push for the midnight confiscations anyway, just because they thirst for the blood of their enemies, and are delusional about how it would turn out.

        1. “”Oops, we can’t mail that tax refund check. And forget about collecting social security…”‘

          Your bank account is frozen. You are ineligible for domestic air travel. You can not enter a federal building. You cannot pass the E-verify for employment. The list can go on and on.

          1. Like an abused spouse, the more dependent you are, the more they can beat and fuck you and you can’t do shit about it.

          2. Which is exactly why the “closing the Charleston loophole” is a bad idea. If the Government can simply “not complete” you background check they can keep you from buying a gun at the whim of anti-gun bureaucrats who can and will slow-walk (snail-crawl?) applications. A 3-day window will turn into 30 years “Yeah, we’re still processing Mr. Johnson’s application…”

        2. You are correct, Brett Bellmore. A large part of the appeal that harsh gun laws have for the political Left is the idea that they can use gun control to punish gun owners for having voted the “wrong” way at little political cost to themselves. Or so they believe. My guess is that guys like Booker under-estimate the number of gun-owning Democrats, or maybe just don’t care how many of the “wrong” kinds of Democrats they will alienate.

          1. Perhaps true now, but gun-owning anyones won’t matter after the Electoral College is bypassed and 5 counties in NY elect the next presidents for 100 years.

  11. “…would unjustly deprive peaceful Americans of the fundamental right to armed self-defense.”

    Feature not bug; if anyone believes this is anything less than an incremental step toward more “common sense and reasonable gun safety” they are a frigging fool. Democrats are big government, and the bigger they are and the more dependent you are, the better.

  12. The simple fact of the matter is that the pre-existing “right” to keep and bear arms is clearly pointed out and plainly protected by the Second Amendment. Those who think otherwise need to take another look at the historical record, and the Amendment.

  13. Booker is a lying sack, which is to say a Democrat Politician. Even if his proposal sounded reasonable (which it does not) his support of it would make me suspicious.

    In any case, the operative phrase in the Second Amendment is not “A well regulated militia”. THAT phrase is the reason for the operative phrase, which is “Shall not be infringed”.

    If Booker (or anyone else) can get around “shall not be infringed” then NONE of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments is secure. I don’t own a gun (slew-foots should not own guns or power saws; it just doesn’t end well) but I have been following this debate since the mid 1970’s. The Gun Rights advocates may be, in there way, as extreme as their opponents…but their predictions have often come true, whereas the predictions of the Gun Control advocates have failed far more often. Loosening gun control laws may shift how and where violence happens, but overall it seems to reduce it. Tightening gun control laws frequently has little or no beneficial effect and often seems to make matters worse.

  14. 2nd Amendment: 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 control is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    The fact that Booker does not understand this should be a huge red flag for voters who should realize that he is a moron.

    1. Oh, Booker realizes that it’s illegal. He just doesn’t CARE.

      1. The one thing people like this don’t understand is that the reason they can step out on the street without being shot is that most gun owners respect the law. All their armed guards can’t stop a sniper. Destroy the Constitution and…

  15. Democrats be crazy. Their ravings will become more and more irrational as November, 2020 approaches.

    Trump has my vote. I think the tax code should be modified to allow every voter to designate $1.00 toward the purchase of a harem of porn harlots for the exclusive use of the Commander in Chief.

  16. A job being necessary for prosperity, the right of the people to own a car shall not be infringed.

    Does this mean only people with a job have a right to a car?

  17. The new argument is that officials might lose your license records? Really? We have a system in place where we can check that. It’s called Drivers Licenses. How many stories have you heard about drivers licenses records being lost? It’s not really a thing because if it was you know you would be hearing about it because last I checked, Americans love their cars.

    1. The requirement of having a drivers licenses to exercise a right is nothing but a way to disenfranchise citizens from exercising that right. See voting rights.

    2. Heraclitus
      May.8.2019 at 10:37 am
      “The new argument is that officials might lose your license records?…”

      No, the ‘new argument’ is A2; read it and weep.

    3. Well, we’ve heard nothing but complaints from the left that people’s voter registrations are being invalidated and purged by the 10’s of thousands and how that impacts Democrat…er, I mean, poor black voters. If the Democrats don’t trust Republican Secretaries of State to abide by all laws and maintain proper voter roles without discrimination and disenfranchising people, why should Republicans trust Democrat bureaucrats with abiding by all laws and issuing permits as required by law?

      1. Do you really want to set a precedent where, say, the right to vote is 100% dependent on unelected government officials who can “review” your voter registration and disallow it on their personal discretion, or slow-walk the approval process so that it takes years to get your name added to the voter roles? Or where your right to vote can be taken away when 3rd parties like doctors report that you are mentally unable to properly exercise your voting rights?

  18. If Booker really wants to compare guns to cars, lets do it.
    I got my driver license at 15, after taking a driver ed course provided by my high school. the cost for the license was reasonably low, the written and practical test were well less than an hour in total and there were no surprises on the test. this license was good in all 50 states on all public roads. With or without the license, I could buy as many cars as my bank account allowed. The license is renewed with a relatively easy process and no retesting even when licensing in different states.
    So does Cory want a gun license for about 40 bucks, high school provided gun safety and handling class, available to 15-17 year olds, good for carrying a gun in all 50 states, and of course buying a gun in any state you are in?
    No? well then his comparison doesn’t hold water.

  19. I hope this means Mr. Booker is now a National Conceal Carry Reciprocity legislation supporter.

  20. It is telling that Booker believes voters who are appalled by Trump’s power grabs would welcome a Democratic president who thinks he can ignore the law as long as they like his policies.

    History shows that this is in fact the case. People tend to be ok with a politician’s behavior when he’s “no their side”.

    1. “ON their side”.

  21. I own a firearm. I know that my firearm is an inanimate object that just lays there and it takes a person to operate it to kill with one. If no one ever touches my firearm, it will never kill. Therefore, in order to feel safe, I believe that everyone’s personal medical and psychiatric records should be public knowledge so that everyone can feel safe knowing who could possibly feel the need to hurt another. Everyone should troop in for an annual government screening with lie detectors and truth serum to determine who may possibly be a danger to another. Lobotomies could be the order of the day for those who do not pass the level of passivity necessary to make everyone feel safe as just giving people drugs to take may not work. Anyone who protests anything , has poor impulse control, ADD/ADHD or suggests any significant change is a danger to someone. Let’s lobotomize them ALL, too. And FINALLY, as people like me who are older than 65 almost never have problems except for being victims, we would be exempt from all these restrictions. Would implementing this ENTIRE suggestion list make you feel safer? I know it would make me feel safer if you were lobotomized.

    1. You should really train your firearms better. I’ve trained mine to go out in the middle of the night and shoot random people, for the lulz.

    2. How about an daily oath to the Flag of the US, the Constitution and the Republic which which it stands? I took that oath, daily, in school, in front of the American Flag and we meant it. The GD Progressives have one goal, destroy our Republic. Why are our children not taking this Patriotic oath daily? Neo-Communist Progressives. You can stand idly by and watch A-holes like Spartacus destroy our country, or we can hold a Convention of the States. There is a Constitutional Crisis at hand. The Domestic enemies of the Republic hand shown their hand. Time to water the Tree of Liberty.

  22. So, we can’t require licenses for voting because it disproportionally affect the poor and minorities. Voting is a constitutional right. But this doesn’t disproportionally affect those same groups? Which is it ya fuqs!

  23. What’s Wrong With Licensing Gun Owners?

    It is illegal, Constitutionally speaking. But that has never stopped gun-grabbers before and it won’t now.

    1. submit fingerprints

      Treating you as guilty until proven innocent.

  24. I believe the 2nd amendment is the license we need.

  25. “What’s Wrong With Licensing Gun Owners?”
    What’s right with licensing gun owners?

  26. I propose Federal Genitalia Licensing, arguably much more dangerous than firearms licensing.

  27. Hey Spartacus! Rump Swabs like you, ARE the reason for the Second Amendment! Get It? Now, more than ever, Molon Labe.

  28. Perhaps we as a society should start to consider the advocacy of property expropriation to be a form of incitement to violence. Conspiring to deprive others of property through the state will not be tolerated, and conspirators should be considered violent and dangerous individuals. Naturally, we need to keep deadly weapons out of the “dangerous hands” of these criminal elements. Resisting confiscation, of course, would be proof of exactly how dangerous these people are.

  29. What’s wrong? Nothing, as long as everyone is required to have a Speech License, an Assembly License, a Worship License…..
    Well, you know where this is going.

  30. […] with Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination and have made gun control a prominent component of their campaigns, concurred. “Enough of excuses,” Booker said, calling for […]

  31. […] with Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination and have made gun control a prominent component of their campaigns, concurred. “Enough of excuses,” Booker said, calling for […]

  32. […] with Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination and have made gun control a prominent component of their campaigns, concurred. “Enough of excuses,” Booker said, calling for […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.