Cory Booker Is Super Enthused To Require Firearms Licensing For Law Abiding Citizens

Everyone talks about wanting a ‘climate change’ debate for the Democrats. We also need a 2nd Amendment debate, where the Democrat presidential candidates can put forth their ideas on stage

See, the interesting thing here is that licensing would not have stopped the Parkland nutjob from shooting up the school. And Cory’s plan is focused almost exclusively on those who are law abiding citizens with firearms. There is nothing which would crack down on those who use/possess firearms illegally. Does anyone think that the people using them in places like Chicago (51 shot, 4 killed over the weekend) are buying them legally? Heck, Democrats are the ones who go soft on criminals, and even want to give them the vote.

Further, his plan goes after the NRA, a group made up of citizens engaged in employing their 1st Amendment Rights, including speech and petitioning for redress of grievance.

From Cory’s plan

Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course.

The FBI would then verify submission of required materials and run a comprehensive background check before issuing a federal gun license, after which the license-holder could freely purchase and own firearms. The license would be valid for up to five years before renewal with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms.

Does anyone think criminals will do this? Further, the problem here is that this is not the end point, it is simply the beginning. Implement this, and then they make it tougher and tougher for law abiding citizens to comply, just like we saw in the District of Columbia, which led to the Heller decision. It was so burdensome and so restrictive that almost no law abiding citizens could obtain the permit. It’s why the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a suit against NYC and their restrictions.

Institute licensing, and not only will the gun grabbers make it harder and harder, but then they will want more restrictions. Bans on guns and ammo. Restrictions and bans on where you can carry them. Do away with concealed carry. Gun “buy backs” which turn people who legally purchased their firearm into criminals if they do not turn them in. Do away with Castle Doctrine and all self defense. Suing gun manufacturers out of business (which is part of Cory’s plan) so no one can actually purchase a firearm, because they aren’t being made.

This is why 2nd Amendment supporters won’t agree to anything, because we know that this will be death by a thousand papercuts.


Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Cory Booker Is Super Enthused To Require Firearms Licensing For Law Abiding Citizens”

  1. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    One hears that Cory Booker is fiercely heterosexual. Is that true?

  2. Kye says:

    It already is a death of a thousand cuts because we have over 6,000 gun laws in the US and this is where they brought us. They want to eliminate the second amendment. Period.

    I can’t understand the warped logic of lefties when they want a test and licensing foe 2A rights but think poll taxes and literacy tests are wrong for 1A rights. Or their illogical conflation of a privilege like driving and a God given Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Those two things aren’t even close to being comparable. It’s like how DemComs demand a photo ID to enter the Democratic Convention but scream “voter suppression” if we suggest the same to vote.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    But, you don’t need a licence to buy or own a car, just to drive it on public streets. And most states already require a licence to “drive your gun in public”. On top of that, it is already illegal to use guns to commit crimes everywhere. It’s already in the definition of “crime”. Obviously, someone out there isn’t following the laws. Maybe we should focus our efforts on them instead.

    • formwiz says:

      Maybe a short rope and a long drop is the answer.

      Of course, when criminals govern the big cities, as is the case today, I guess you should include them.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    The D.C. way is to just continue enforcing restrictive gun laws, knowing that most people can’t afford to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court, like Heller. The local courts and appellate courts continue to uphold enforcement because they don’t care about the law, only the outcome. Having a gun in DC is still deFacto illegal for 99% of the population.

  5. The Neon Madman says:

    The other factor, of course, is that this license will not be free. There will be some charge for it, ostensibly to support the additional buearacracy to issue and maintain the database, then of course the call will come to register each firearm (with more associated fees), and so on.

    Short answer is NO. BFYTW

  6. joe dirt says:

    they have to know where to come get all the guns once they take back the white house…PDJT is the last guy fighting for America we will ever have…ammo up peeps…

  7. Professor Hale says:

    I keep hearing this thing about “having the highest homicide rate of any advanced nation”. But that is a statistical fluke since the USA is not a homogeneous “advanced nation”. The truth is, we are an advanced nation with several non-advanced nations inside it. If you remove the homicides being committed by the African, Central Asian and Hispanic populations, the remaining population leads the world in safety.

    It can be broken down even easier than that. If you don’t live in a neighborhood with more than 10% black, Hispanic, or 1st gen immigrant people, and don’t do recreational drugs or hang around people who do, your chances of being violently homicided are diminishingly small. Of course, it would be racist to disarm just the offensive parts of the population. A compromise would be, just disarm all the Democrats. As the Democrats have been telling us, political preferences are not constitutionally protected.

    • Kye says:

      Once again Professor, you hit the nail on the head. I especially like your last line.

      Trump 2020 Disarm all Democrats TODAY!

Pirate's Cove