He’s throwing some big red meat to the unhinged Democrat base in an attempt to rise in the polls
Cory Booker now has the most ambitious gun control proposal of any 2020 candidate
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) sums up his ambitious new gun control plan in one sentence: “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.â€
Booker on Monday unveiled his proposal to tackle America’s gun problem as part of his bid for the presidency, detailing a plan that sets a high bar for the rest of the Democratic field.
The plan from Booker includes the typical Democratic proposals: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, better enforcement of existing gun laws, and more funding for gun violence research.
But Booker’s plan goes further by requiring that gun owners not just pass a background check, but obtain a license to be able to purchase and own a firearm. This is a far more robust gun control proposal than any other presidential candidate has proposed. The idea has solid research behind it, and real-world experience in nine states that currently require a license or permit for at least handguns, including Booker’s home state of New Jersey. (snip)
Booker’s proposal would require people to obtain a license to purchase and own a gun. To obtain a license, people would go to designated outposts — similar to the passport system — to get a federal license, administered by the FBI. Applicants would need to pay a fee; submit paperwork, a photo, and fingerprints; sit for an interview; pass a comprehensive background check; and go through gun safety training to get a gun. The license would be valid for five years, although it could be rescinded if someone breaks the law or otherwise proves to be a danger.
Much like in the District of Columbia, this would make it virtually impossible for law abiding citizens to get a firearm. First, it would take forever to go through the process. Where would these “outposts” be? How many? What would the fee be? What does the paperwork do and how much of it is there? How long would that interview take? Second, since this would now include opinion from those deciding from the interview, they can just deny most applications.
Then we have the notion that law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals to engage in their Constitutional right. Interestingly, the same liberals, like Cory, who want to implement this stuff also do not want to rescind residency for illegal aliens who have broken the law. Also, same Democrats are against any and all forms of identification to vote. Go figure.
But, if this managed to pass the U.S. Congress, the lawsuits would stop them in their tracks.
Beyond licensing, Booker’s plan would also establish a national database to register and track guns. This, again, is a key component of Massachusetts’s law: By providing a way for law enforcement to track all guns in the state, they’re also able to know which weapons to take away if someone’s license is revoked due to, say, criminal activity.
Of course it requires a database. Easier to take away your rights if they know what you have.
Also, perhaps I missed the part where you need to get fingerprinted and go through an interview to buy a car.
They should just leap to the universal Identity card. One government issued ID card that could be used to validate citizenship and all the rights that go with it, excepting those that have been removed by court order. It could even be expanded to include other certifications like a licence to practice law, practice medicine, Law enforcement badges, etc.
Oh. But Democrats aren’t interested in universal identity and all the benefits that society could gain from that. Their idea is just more alone the lines of “make gun ownership too expensive for poor and middle class people to bother with”.
Or perhaps they want America to disarm. It is much easier to stage a revolution when the other side isnt armed.
Just poor and middle class. In a police state, the police still have guns. And they use their guns to protect the rich and politically connected.
“Conspiracies Are Us!”
Let’s see. Commie/Wealthy/Politically connected/Dem/Nice Fascist/Jew Media/Muslim/Socialist/Nazis are plotting to take over America by outvoting the White Christian Party (GOP) by having millions of fake votes cast and “fixing” the Kentuky Derby. Then they will pass laws to restrict the right to bear arms, i.e., to disarm the resistance. Putin pays blog commenters to ‘soften’ the populace by ridiculing other commenters on little-read blogs.
Nah, we ridicule little 12 year old girls for free.
While I don’t want to see federal licensing, and believe the Second Amendment permits all citizens to own and carry whatever firearm they deem necessary, it is just silly to say that Booker’s plan to require a federal license would make it “virtually impossible for law abiding citizens to get a firearm”. This type of licensing exists today in Connecticut for handguns – before you can buy a handgun, you need to take an 8 hour class and get the police to issue you a photo ID authorizing you to carry – on a shall issue basis. The process used to take about 6 weeks, but now probably takes several months. So Booker’s licensing proposal would make it more difficult to buy a gun in certain states, but would not make it impossible, and would have no impact on someone who already lives in an oppressive state. If you want to argue that the federal government is not as competent as Connecticut and the process would be a never ending bureaucratic nightmare, or that these scheme would not be on a “shall issue” basis, those are different (and good) arguments. But overhyping the impact of Booker’s idiocy is not productive.