Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cory Booker Pushes for a National Gun Registry, Federal License for Owners

Cory Booker Pushes for a National Gun Registry, Federal License for Owners

“individuals would need to submit fingerprints, complete a background check, and show completion of a certified gun safety course”

2020 Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced a new gun control policy, which would require owners to register and obtain a federal license. Booker obviously wants to gain some more attention since he sits at 2.5 percent in the Real Clear Politics average of polls.

Emily Larsen reports at the Washington Examiner:

Cory Booker plans national gun registry

Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker on Monday unveiled a new gun control plan that calls for federal licenses for gun owners and an investigation into the National Rifle Association’s nonprofit status.

The New Jersey senator’s campaign called Booker’s plan the “most sweeping gun violence prevention plan ever put forth by a presidential candidate.”

“As president, we will make commonsense changes to our gun laws such as requiring a license to purchase a gun that includes universal background checks, banning assault weapons, and closing the loopholes that allow domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists to get their hands on a gun,” Booker said in a statement. “I am sick and tired of hearing thoughts and prayers for the communities that have been shattered by gun violence — it is time for bold action.”…

Under the plan, individuals would need to submit fingerprints, complete a background check, and show completion of a certified gun safety course in order to obtain a federal gun license. It would also limit gun purchasers to buying one handgun per month and ban “assault weapons,” high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks.

Democrats usually cry racism at the mere suggestion of voter ID, but in the case of exercising your Second Amendment rights, Booker says this is no different than obtaining a driver’s license.

Paul Steinhauser reports at FOX News:

Booker argued 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 safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”

The senator said his proposal builds on “rigorous evidence at the state level demonstrating the connection between gun licensing and reduction in gun violence.”

Booker is also singling out the NRA, one of the left’s favorite targets:

Taking aim at the National Rifle Association, the politically powerful organization that mostly opposes gun restrictions, Booker vowed if elected to the White House to “bring a fight to the NRA like they have never ever seen before.”

Booker has an “F” rating from the NRA.

Booker discussed the proposal Monday on CBS This Morning:

Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon, one of the most knowledgeable journalists working today on the subject of guns, provided his take:

Finally, note Booker’s refusal to answer this question:

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Has America ever had a gun atrocity which was due to a shortcoming in “safety and training standards”? I can’t think of one. Nor can I think of any such crime actually committed by the NRA. Sparky is obviously barking up the wrong tree.

    Cleetus in reply to tom_swift. | May 8, 2019 at 5:53 am

    If the Left’s effort was really to get a handle on gun homicides, then they would focus on the criminal behavior in our inner cities where over 90% of these killings occur. In fact, they do not and have never really cared about these inner city killings for their true goal has as much to do with protecting the safety of the public as the fishing industry has to do with fixing potholes in Denver. These arguments by Booker and others of his ilk are thinly disguised attempts to disarm the lawful public which would make a Venezuela style take over of the US much easier. That so much of the public fails to see the transparent lies of Booker and others over their gun control “solutions” merely demonstrates the pathetic levels of education and thinking skill among so many in our country’s population.

      Edward in reply to Cleetus. | May 8, 2019 at 10:27 am

      Those who never were educated about the thinking of the Founders and Socialist-Democrat ideologues (most of whom qualify under the first also) will likely claim you are engaging in outrageous conspiracy theory. Yet this is exactly the reasoning and purpose of the Founders in proposing, passing and ratifying the Second Amendment as one of the Bill of Rights*. That is to assure the people have the ability not only to assist in opposing a foreign invasion but to resist a despotic government should that ever occur.

      * Which conferred no rights, but were intended to protect what the Founders believed were natural rights from the new national government (and subsequently slowly incorporated by the SCOTUS to protect against state government infringement).

The Packetman | May 7, 2019 at 9:32 am

The Mitch McConnell should encourage Booker to submit his plan to the floor for debate, and then add amendments requiring the same for reporters, social media accounts, and voting.

Put in on the ballot and let voters decide. If they insist on taking them away by force, that is why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. But they know that don’t they? We are NOT going to become Venezuela without a fight.

    Sanddog in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm

    And of course, Cory isn’t going to volunteer to be a door kicker in the pursuit of a disarmed citizenry. That should be a requirement of any law that bans or limits firearms. The politicians who sponsor/co-sponsor the bills should have to spend a year being the point man for any firearms confiscation raids.

TX-rifraph | May 7, 2019 at 9:36 am

1) Driving is a state-level privilege; Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
2) The criminals like his proposal as they actually would be safer.

    4fun in reply to TX-rifraph. | May 7, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    2) The criminals like his proposal as they actually would be safer.
    Yep, just like ny’s Sullivan Act. Timmy sullivan’s boys were getting shot when shaking down LEGAL immigrants and he wanted to protect them.
    Time to bring back the poll tax.
    1. $200 each election with no federal, state or local money to be given to anyone. It comes out of your wallet.
    2. Only property owners may vote.
    3. Mandatory ID requirements, no exceptions.
    4. Add your own, there’s plenty more that can be added.

      Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | May 8, 2019 at 11:14 am


      Just because there used to be some southern states that denied the franchise to black people who hadn’t paid their poll taxes (but not to white people who hadn’t paid it either), many Americans have this idea fixed in their heads that a poll tax is a tax on voting. This is just sheer ignorance of the English language.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 9, 2019 at 12:58 pm

        A 10 cent poll tax has nothing to do with voting.

        A $10,000.00 poll tax has everything to do with voting.

    alaskabob in reply to TX-rifraph. | May 7, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    You can own an auto at any age. Even drive it on your own property. Licensing is only to operating on public roads.

Here in MA, this is essentially what we already live with. Piss off Spartacus.

And here I thought these politicians swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Silly me.

What a moron this guy is.

    Halcyon Daze in reply to Virginia42. | May 7, 2019 at 12:46 pm

    He has no close relationship to logic or reason.

      He’s just fishing for the loon vote.

      This guy is a US Senator. Unbelievable.

        Of course his being Senator is believable, as New Yorkers would say “It’s Jersey” (OK some would say “It’s Joysey”).

        PersonofInterests in reply to | May 8, 2019 at 2:54 pm

        But then there is also Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Dick Durbin of IL, and “The Big Boofer, Weldon Shithouse of RI. Lest I forget, DaNandDick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

        American Patriots have a lot of flushing to do and day by day, it seem with the current Civil War just getting warmed up, we don’t have much longer to wait.

Occasional Thinker | May 7, 2019 at 10:37 am

“people on terrorist watch lists to get their hands on a gun,”

Cory is now in favor of closing the southern border? Stop the terrorist and the guns from coming in that way. Next we can pass laws to make people stop stealing guns.

If you take his statement and change it from guns to voting, I could support it. Background check (there goes Bernies felon base), fingerprints (citizens only), civics test (understand how the country is designed to work, I bet Hillsdale would put a course together for free), and only one vote per election.

As for felons voting, I am not opposed to restoring the civil rights of those who have paid the penalty demanded of them, but I believe it should be an all or nothing proposition. Voting, guns, etc. If you are prohibited from owning a gun, you don’t vote. I also don’t believe you should be able to hold public office if do not have full civil rights (think of all the years of Teddy Kennedy that would have prevented) and that Constitutional rights can not be denied for misdemeanor offenses (misdemeanor domestic abuse) or due process. (I know that qualifications for Federal office are listed in the Constitution, the same Constitution that has the words “shall not be infringed” in regard to firearms, so why let it interfere with who can be denied the ability to run for office? I wonder how many members of Congress would be out of a job if misdemeanor domestic abuse became a disqualification?)

    I agree with the FL Legislature which has a bill which defines what “completion of sentence” means under the law (and for purposes of restoration of voting rights): Prison time completed, probation completed and all fines, court costs, fees and ordered restitution paid in full.

Booker – still hasn’t mastered the English language.

“shall not be infringed”

And there are any number of people who believe that when Booker, or any Democrat, took the Article VI oath, they actually meant it.

Criminals are exempt from registration and licensing schemes according to SCOTUS in *Haynes v. United States* (1968)……

” We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.”

    Milhouse in reply to CDR D. | May 7, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    Not true. They’re exempt from having to register or declare weapons they already own illegally, but they’re fully covered by the current requirement that FFLs not sell someone a gun without running a background check, and they’d also be fully covered by any prohibition on buying a gun without a license, or on selling one to someone without a license.

      CDR D in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 6:02 pm

      Felons generally don’t get their guns from FFL dealers, unless through a straw purchase. With upwards of 300 million guns in the US, there can be a robust black market, and there is no way that the criminals will be required to self incriminate.

        Milhouse in reply to CDR D. | May 7, 2019 at 6:09 pm

        The point is that no self-incrimination is involved, so Haynes is irrelevant.

          4fun in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 8:25 pm

          Yeah, it was so irrelevant it went to the SC for shits and giggles.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 10:52 am

          You were good with regard to GCA ’68, but then you went and extended your position to all firearms and registration statutes. Haynes still is operative for NFA violations. And I suspect that if a felon completed an 80% receiver and built an AR in a locality with a registration requirement, the felon would be protected from an add-on failure to register violation.

          But that’s the whole thing, isn’t it. It would be an added violation to any “felon with a firearm” charge, so not a real big deal.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 11:23 am

          Yeah, it was so irrelevant it went to the SC for shits and giggles.

          Now you’re just incoherent. What you wrote simply makes no sense in any language. Haynes is utterly irrelevant to anything being discussed here. All it says is that you can’t make someone who already owns a gun illegally tell the government about it. You absolutely can make someone who wishes to purchase a gun, and therefore hasn’t yet committed any crime, tell the government anything you like, because he’s not incriminating himself; and if he fails to tell the truth, then you can prosecute him for it.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 11:25 am

          I suspect that if a felon completed an 80% receiver and built an AR in a locality with a registration requirement, the felon would be protected from an add-on failure to register violation.

          Yes, he would be. At that point he’s already committed the crime, so he can’t be made to inform on himself.

After watching the abuses by the Democrat Party of our election process, by spying on a Presidential candidate’s campaign, and then investigating the living hell out of it, even though they knew the motivation for the investigation was political, I have to apply the newly confirmed information to their other efforts.

Based on their actions, how likely is it that they would abuse the confidential information contained in any gun registry?

I cannot escape the strong indicators that this is not about law enforcement. It is about getting a handy list of presumed non-Democrats for the purpose of abusing their rights.

    JLSpeidel in reply to Valerie. | May 7, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    Registration always leads to confiscation. As it is now, they can only guess who has the guns. Except I don’t have any more. All of mine fell overboard while deep sea fishing in the Alaskan waters.

      Milhouse in reply to JLSpeidel. | May 7, 2019 at 6:08 pm

      This is precisely why in principle I would support a system of licensing owners instead of (not in addition to) approving gun purchases. That way there’d be no record of who owns what, and thus no way to confiscate anything.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 8:25 pm

        Open up to only allowing the fellow travelers and true believers to get licenses.

        Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 11:30 am

        The current “purchase approval” system prohibits retention of the data beyond 24 hours (or the next system update) for those who are approved. Obviously that can be abused, but when retention regulations (IIRC only regulations at that point) were violated it was known fairly promptly and reversed and the prohibition added to statute.

        The data submitted is personal identification and whether the person wished to buy a long gun or handgun. Specific information about the weapon is not submitted. A limited data set (e.g. how many handgun requests from each state for the month of April) may be kept for statistical purposes but may not include personally identifying information. So if the law if broken and records retained (a huge database given the number of requests, not all of which actually end in a purchase), Uncle would know that John Q. Public wanted to buy either a rifle or shotgun, or a handgun. There is no fee by the Federal government involved in the NICS check.

        OTOH a license is information which identifies the licensee at least as someone wishing to own firearms. Currently all such state issued licenses involve a fee. This personally identifying data is kept at least for the duration of the license plus any period necessary to ensure the person no longer owns firearms. And there would likely be no prohibition of retention of the data beyond that period. Would such a license morph into something like the NY handgun license where each acquired handgun must be added to the license with a fired case from the handgun provided to the NY State Police and the physical acquisition of the purchased handgun prohibited unless and until the local LEO authorized release of the purchase to the buyer?

          Edward in reply to Edward. | May 8, 2019 at 11:35 am

          Obviously benighted people in places such as California may have a different experience with state run systems, the above applies only to the Federal system applicable to any state which does not have a more stringent system in place.

          Milhouse in reply to Edward. | May 9, 2019 at 10:14 am

          OTOH a license is information which identifies the licensee at least as someone wishing to own firearms.

          No more than a drivers’ license identifies the licensee as someone who might one day wish to own a car. If almost everyone gets licensed at 18, as is the case for driving, then the license becomes useless as a tool for identifying who owns cars/guns, let alone which ones or how many.

          Would such a license morph into something like the NY handgun license where each acquired handgun must be added to the license with a fired case from the handgun provided to the NY State Police and the physical acquisition of the purchased handgun prohibited unless and until the local LEO authorized release of the purchase to the buyer?

          That’s because they’re licensing the guns, not the owners. It’s like a dog license, or like a TV license in the UK. I’m talking about licensing owners the way we now license drivers. And doing it on a mass basis, exactly as drivers’ licensing is now done, so that getting one at 18 is an expected rite of passage, even if one has no immediately plans to put it to use.

          Barry in reply to Edward. | May 9, 2019 at 11:49 pm

          Drivers licenses require passing tests, and renewal every few years.

          No thanks. No constitutional declarations/amendments about driving, there is about arms.

There’s something about the Democrat primary process that reminds me of fishing with dynamite. Toss incendiary ideas into the pool, wait for the boom and see what floats to the top.

Spartacus is a truly dim bulb.

Spartacus seeks to disarm the populace.

    PersonofInterests in reply to Sally MJ. | May 9, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    So did Hugo Chavez and the result is now playing in full view for all the Useful idiots who favor Socialistm.

    At the Useful Idiots in Venezuela are learning, “You can elect your way into Socialism, but if you finally learn the long history of it the hard way and want to leave, you’ll have to shoot your way out.” Of course, the Venezuelans had their guns confiscated in 2013 when Ole now dead Hugo got a law passed in 2012.


“…individuals would need to submit fingerprints, complete a background check, and show completion of a certified gun safety course in order to obtain a federal gun license.”

Says it right there in the 2nd, somewhere, I mean I know it’s there…

    MrE in reply to Barry. | May 7, 2019 at 12:45 pm

    “…individuals would need to submit fingerprints, complete a background check, and show completion of a certified gun safety course in order to obtain a federal gun license.”

    Replace with any of the following and listen for the howls:

    “free press license”
    “free speech license”
    “free religion license”
    “peaceful assembly license”
    “voting license”

Maybe all the TOXINS from dead brain cells in his cranium are what killed his hair follicles.

bobinreverse | May 7, 2019 at 12:16 pm

But it be Ray Cis if minorities need ID to vote drink drive or travel on planes.

Cory, Bless your heart… you are why we have a 2nd amendment.

Sorry there Sparky, but in just the last few years we’ve seen your party weaponize the IRS, DOJ, FBI and intelligence community. You think we’re going to submit to a gun registry?

Not only no, but fuck no and FUCK YOU!

The same for Planned Parenthood, women, and men. Planned parenthood (i.e. wicked solution including selective and recycled-child) is a leading cause of childhood mortality and feminine female collateral damage on a forward-looking basis.

Also, vehicle owners, scalpel owners, tool owners, bat owners, fighters, weightlifters, and the majority means by which violence, up to and including elective abortion, is perpetrated.

The positive that I see from this is that the Dhimmi-crats’/Dumb-o-crats’ intrinsic totalitarian ethos, so long concealed under sundry masks and fig leaves, is now unveiled, for all rational citizens to see.

The Dhimmis/Dumbs want to treat law-abiding citizens availing themselves of one of the core Constitutional rights, as criminals. Meanwhile, actual criminals and sociopaths are — naturally — coddled in every way possible by the Dhimmis/Dumbs.

Will Not Comply… Its better to be an Outlaw living on my feet the a Subject living on my knee’s…

I just checked the NJ State Bar list to see if Cory was an attorney in good standing. Turns out that his law license has been retired.

Moreover, when I checked for disciplinary actions involving Cory Booker I was advised that that document is no longer available.

Just another puffed up affirmative action Yaley with a crisp white shirt and bizarre socialist predilections.

I despise bullies in white shirts who want to use the force of the federal government against the citizens of the United States to stifle, impede, impugn, malign, restrain, enjoin, prohibit and diminish by specious contentions and vacuous arguments to conceal their obviously ulterior motives.

Cory Booker is a slacker and a pose who will never hold national office, elected or otherwise. Better that he would stick with Newark where his brand and trade name carry some gravity.

    Milhouse in reply to NotKennedy. | May 7, 2019 at 3:14 pm

    Of course his license is inactive. He’s not practicing law, so why on earth would he keep it active? I doubt there are any congressmen with active law licenses. If they ever go back into practice they can always reactivate them. And of course, as an inactive lawyer, it makes sense that his record is unavailable. Since you’re not considering engaging him, you have no legitimate interest in seeing it.

      tphillip in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 3:34 pm

      Public records are public records. The public does not need any reason to see public records.

      Sad you’re willing to deny people access to public records. Such a good little fascist.

        Milhouse in reply to tphillip. | May 7, 2019 at 5:39 pm

        There is no reason a former lawyer’s disciplinary record should be a public record. It is none of anyone’s business.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 11:43 am

          As you so effectively point out a lawyer with a retired license may reactivate his license at any point in the future. As such it is incumbent on the licensing authority to retain disciplinary records so the public may assess whether to oppose the reactivation of the license (if state law allows) or assess whether they would wish to hire the lawyer in future. There are most definitely rational reasons for the records, if any, to remain publicly available. If there are none, the record should so state.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 12:06 pm

          That comment should, quite obviously, been applied to the next comment regarding tax returns.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 12:07 pm

          And the comment just was place din proper order. Oh well, no ability to edit, only reply to myself.

        Milhouse in reply to tphillip. | May 7, 2019 at 5:40 pm

        So you’ll let everyone see your tax return, because that’s a public record too? What’s the difference?

          Paul in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 6:28 pm

          No, tax returns are not public records. They are private. They contain confidential information.

          New Jersey law says all disciplinary proceedings are public since 1994.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 7:44 pm

          Do you have any reason to suppose that there has ever been a disciplinary proceeding against him? His record is none of your business unless you’re planning to engage him, which you’re not because he’s not practicing. So unless you’re willing to let everyone see your tax return you have no business insisting on seeing his record.

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 8, 2019 at 12:04 pm

          You know the difference. This is one of those times when you are obviously too involved in your argument to accept that you have chosen the losing side and just let it go. It’s not like lawyers are such a law observant group that they are above reproach. Texas decided members of professional groups legally obligated to pay a fee to the state might not be paying said fees. Dentists, IIRC, had about a 40% to 60% adherence to the law, plumbers 40%. Lawyers, being so aware of the laws, had a rate of 10% paying the required fee. You know the old story, if you don’t agree with the law, work to change it (and what other group is in a better position to do so than the legislators who are predominantly lawyers).

Sure, as soon as journalists, voters, politicians, lobbyists, etc (see the pattern) are licensed, tested and background checked. That’ll happen.

If we had a constitutional AG he would declare laws in violation of 2A and 14A as civil rights violations and penalize states for enacting them

OleDirtyBarrister | May 7, 2019 at 2:20 pm

Come and take it!

This isn’t a serious campaign.

There are two graveyards in American electoral politics, abortion policy and gun control. Nobody can successfully run on either. They can pivot to them, certainly, but only after election.

So this is just something to get Sparky noticed. If he’s never noticed, he’ll never land a post-government career with a Harvard appointment or a regular spot at CNN. Being noticed for something suicidally quixotic will do; anything is better than not being noticed at all.

Far be it from me to oppose actual common sense, but if you require a license to buy a gun, and the license requires a background check, why specify “universal” background checks? Don’t those only matter for people buying a gun without a license?

    Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | May 7, 2019 at 6:00 pm

    Stop making sense, you.

    tom_swift in reply to JBourque. | May 7, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    I don’t know what some scumsucker Democrat means by “universal background check”. But if he means the National Instant Check System, it doesn’t serve exactly the same function as a license.

    The license gives enough information to identify the licensee—photo ID, fingerprint, height & weight, blah blah. It also certifies that at the time of issue the licensee wasn’t a fugitive from justice, had no restraining orders, serious criminal history, etc.

    The NICS verifies that that criminal status information is up-to-date.

Subotai Bahadur | May 7, 2019 at 4:24 pm

I am reminded of a variation of an old campaign song, “Jefferson and Liberty”

It starts:

The Night of Fire is yet to come.
The Tyrant’s shadow down the years,
Demands we kneel or take the gun.
And go shed Blood instead of our tears.

The amazing thing is “Spartacus” imagines he is a) sane and b) will ever be President of the United States.

Milhouse, I’m addressing this to you not because I believe you think like this joker. I’m just curious how many jokers like this live in NYC or its environs? If we wanted to live under NY or NJ rules we would have moved their.

Apparently Booker’s imaginary friend T-Bone has caused Cory Booker to hallucinate that we in Iowa or Montana or Texas or Arizona or Alaska that, after a satisfying day’s hunt, whether for pheasants or deer or elk or dove, we sit around the campfire and wish for some failed mayor from Newark to impose his gun laws on us.

Seriously? Is this mental illness common in your area? I’m asking you, because I know despite the fact I sometimes differ vehemently sometimes you make sense. So therefore I submit you are a sane and intelligent man. So therefore I’m forced to ask, on what planet does Cory Booker (or Andrew Cuomo or whomever) imagine this kind of gun control scheme is a selling point?

OBTW, we yokels in Green Acres Junction speak English. So tell the Dem candy-dates that they don’t have to speak down to us in Kerry-esque fashion like we were all extras in the movie “Deliverance.”

“Duz y’all know where I can buh me a huntin’ license?” (Banjo boy playing in the background.)

OK, Kerry wasn’t all that bad. But close, very close.

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | May 7, 2019 at 5:47 pm

    Milhouse, I’m addressing this to you not because I believe you think like this joker. I’m just curious how many jokers like this live in NYC or its environs?

    By local standards Booker is very moderate. Some might even call him conservative! Most people here simply cannot grasp the notion that being armed is a civil liberty just like reading a newspaper or not being arbitrarily arrested.

In principle a system for licensing owners (not weapons) would be better than the current system of background checks, and I believe it would be constitutional.

I’m thinking of something that runs much like driver’s licensing now. Almost everyone gets a driver’s license at 18, and having a license is no indication of whether someone owns a car, let alone how many cars and what type. So I’d be fine with gun licenses being done the same way — almost everyone takes shooter’s ed at school, goes for their test, and gets their license as a rite of passage. Testing would be run by organizations like the NRA, on contract with the state.

Then whenever someone wishes to buy a gun all they would have to do is present their license to prove they’re entitled to own guns. No background check, no record of the purchase, no nothing.

On conviction of a felony or on being ruled incompetent in a judicial proceeding with due process, a person’s license would be suspended or canceled. They could no longer purchase guns. FFLs would be able to run a license number to make sure it’s still valid, but that’s all. It would be illegal for the dealer or the government to keep a record of the transaction.

Of course this is the last thing Booker or any Democrat would support. They want licensing on top of registries, weapon bans, arbitrary cancellation of licenses, and all the rest of it. No. We’ve already made so many concessions to the gun grabbers in the name of being reasonable, and we’ve got nothing in return. At this point they are no longer entitled to a presumption of good faith, and every proposal they make, no matter how facially reasonable, should be fiercely resisted.

    CDR D in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 6:06 pm

    Lots of bandwidth to demolish your own proposal. Good job.

    Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    You have a habit of giving with one hand, taking with another, Milhouse.

    But no matter. Here’s something to blow the minds of your neighbors. And maybe you if you think a felony conviction, for instance, means you can’t ever own a gun again.

    “Possession of Firearms by Felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Texas Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, possession of and hunting with a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or is a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition.”

    Actually this might blow most Texan’s minds. But there it is, in plain sight in the hunting regs.

    A lot of guys come out of prison unreformed. If that’s the case they will go back to their life of crime and buy black market/stolen ARs or Glocks or what have you.

    Others come out of prison having learned their lesson. They just want to be a welder or an electrician. Or, in the case of one my good friend’s son, follow his father into the mortgage business.

    Do we really have to worry about an ex-con with a Hawken rifle or Pennsylvania long rifle? Not all states allow felons to own muzzle loading firearms, obviously considering the fainting couches that they would need, but when you think about it when you meet someone in the woods with Hawken rifle (I like Hawked rifles a lot) and he turns out to be an ex-con it’s a lot friendlier encounter than you’re going to have if you meet an ex-con with an AK in your bank.

    Milhouse, when is the most recent time someone robbed a bodega with a Brown Bess musket?

    tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2019 at 9:03 pm

    Pretty much.

    American gun control is three-pronged—it tries to regulate the person, the hardware, and the time and place of “carry”. The second two are explicitly protected by the 2nd, but there is room to regulate the first because “the people” need not mean each and every last individual person. A more restrictive definition should pass Constitutional muster so long as the vast majority of us qualify.

Demoncrats | May 7, 2019 at 6:05 pm

The only license required to own a firearm in the USA is to be a citizen and vote smartly to elect those who defend all of our constitutional rights. This is especially essential for keeping the second amendment UNABRIDGED!

Here’s a thought. And if NJ/NYC gun laws to the 10th power are such a good idea this should have even more appeal.

No one can have heterosexual sex outside of a police station. In specially designed “love suite” cells under close police supervision via CCTV.

Gays? No problem. Go force a Christian to bake a cake for you. live free, free like the wind.

But you cisgendered types. Ohh, do I have message from Cory Booker for you*. You must get affirmative consent from your woman. It isn’t good enough that no means no. It means that you must get a yes for every action you take.

Me: Can I unbutton this button?

Her: Well, Ok.

Me: May I put my hand on your thigh?

Her: Umm, OK

I put my hand on her thigh and slide it up toward her buttocks.

Over the loudspeaker comes the command:

“Arrest that man! He exceeded his authorization.”

I’d bet you think I’m insane for suggesting that you can only have sex in front of a set of federal “hall monitors.”

20 years ago I would have thought people were insane for telling me about the world I live in today.

” Kontraband Contract”

I guess this goes here.

“Mopar 413 Max Wedge engine on test stand”

File it under, “Cool s*** the Dems don’t want me to own, like guns.”

Note it’s on a test stand. AOC would never permit me to put it in a car.

Isn’t life so much better when we peasants know our place?

Booker isn’t that well liked in NJ.

    PersonofInterests in reply to rscalzo. | May 9, 2019 at 11:54 am

    Obviously, “Likeability” is not a criteria; having the letter “D” or skin color is. In NJ, a Cowpie could get elected by having the letter “D” next to it and it’s dark enough to satisfy the skin color criteria. But NJ isn’t the only one that has this problem, e.g., CT, CA, NY, MA, OR, WA, MN, MD, etc.

We need a National Politician Registry with fingerprints, a complete background check, and a test on the Constitution. Of course, the test would be written so that “Progressive” interpretations rather than ratified wording would cause one to fail the test.

Regressives,like this loon, ought to be required to pass a background check, submit to polygraph tests,give their fingerprints, and other control measures before being allowed out in public, and then for no more than 5 minutes at a time.