CCRKBA: Cory Booker’s Outrageous Gun Control Scheme Ignores 2A Rights

cory booker gun control campaign

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

See our post from earlier today regarding Senator Spartacus and his desperate gamble for more attention in a crowded Democrat field. In the mean time, here’s what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has to say about grandstanding demagogues . . .

BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat presidential aspirant Cory Booker’s far-ranging gun control scheme that calls for five-year licensing, invasive background checks, bans on semiautomatic rifles and original capacity magazines and more amounts to an outrageous plan to turn the Second Amendment right into a government-regulated privilege, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“With this proposal, Booker isn’t just one of those anti-gun politicians who claims to ‘support the Second Amendment…but’,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “he’s literally throwing a constitutionally-enumerated right into the trash, and he knows it. For a person hoping to be elected to the highest office in the land to advocate such an outrageous proposal isn’t just disappointing, it is disturbing.”

Booker’s plan calls for licensing gun owners on a five-year basis. He would repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to expose firearms manufacturers to costly junk lawsuits and other legal harassment. He would resurrect the failed one-gun-a-month mandate that never prevented a single crime when it was tried, and later repealed, in South Carolina and Virginia. The Washington, D.C. law was struck down by a federal appeals court in 2015.

The scheme calls for Microstamping, a technology that has not prevented or solved any crime, and would make firearms prohibitively expensive for no discernable benefit. He would push for so-called “universal background checks” that criminals already ignore, and which might actually encourage more gun shop burglaries, thefts from private homes or police cars, and other illegal gun trafficking.

“Proposals like this underscore why American gun owners are increasingly distrustful of Democrats,” Gottlieb observed. “Booker’s plan is demagoguery on steroids, and it once again targets the wrong people. He doesn’t want to crack down on criminals, he wants to create new ones with the stroke of a pen.

“Booker’s brainstorm is nothing more than a combination of every pie-in-the-sky idea on the gun control wish list,” Gottlieb said. “While his plan is disturbing, what is even more alarming is that not one other Democrat now in the race denounced the plan. If they all agree with Booker, they need to admit it now so voters realize they are all willing to trample on the Bill of Rights.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

comments

  1. avatar 🙂 says:

    While this may be hard for some to admit the second amendment is to some extent already a government regulated privilege. If you want to carry a concealed weapon in many states that allow it you have to pay for the mandatory training, pay for fingerprints and background, and finally pay for the permit itself. The same goes for any item that is currently restricted by the NFA, you pay your privilege money, you wait for big government to say it’s ok and then and only then do you get to exercise your privilege that the government has charged you for. We need to stop referring to it as a right because a right does not involve jumping through government hoops and pay to play.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It is a right regardless of what the surrender monkey’s say. Because the right is being abused doesn’t mean it’s not a right.

      In a lot of America gun owners are being forced to sit at the back of the bus. But as history teaches us this can change.

      1. avatar 🙂 says:

        This again may be hard for some to swallow but I’m waiting for such a change. Currently all I see on the horizon is the very strong possibility of things getting worse not better. 2020 leaves a lot of question marks as to which direction this country will go. I don’t like to say it but I’m not overly hopeful at this point. There is too much nonsense coming from the government and too much tolerance from the country as a whole for me to feel overly hopeful.

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          the more laws they pass, the more law-breakers they create.

          American law requires a compliant populous. Pot laws demonstrate what happens when you try to outlaw a thing everyone has.

          The cow is way outta the barn on gun laws.

        2. avatar 🙂 says:

          Marijuana laws are a good example of how laws make criminals out of otherwise lawful people. Look how long it has taken to change the outlook on marijuana by the government and the federal side still hasn’t moved much on the subject. The only thing that has inspired change on marijuana is medical use in my opinion. I also think that if for no other reason it should be 100% legal across the board. I also think all that all past criminal charges for marijuana should be expunged. Do I think at some point marijuana will be legalized? Yes eventually. I have absolutely no inclination that the government will allow such mass expungment of criminal records to happen though. That would require the government to say it was wrong and we no how much the government likes to do that.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          says – BS. You idiot potheads are so addlebrained you think there is an American who has never met an dumbass pothead. Useless mindnumbed twits. Then put them in a car on the highway? NO. The majority/norman America does not buy it any more that the rest of the progtard agenda – global warmin, abortion until after born, Marxist/socialism.

          The BS pot as 21st century Dr Dumbass snake oil “medicine” is your plan for getting the camel nose under the side of the tent is running it’s course. NO evidence it’s anything more than a placebo. Take your religion to Jamaica mon and waste your brain where it won’t damage those around you.

        4. avatar 🙂 says:

          Assume much or are you just an ass, possibly even a jackass? I’ve never done an illegal drug in my life fucktard. I personally don’t give a damn if it is only a placebo. If it gives people that are sick comfort so be it. Who the fuck do you think you are you self righteous ass? I can only hope that you have some horrible sickness and someone denies you comfort so you can know what is like to suffer and want help. I’m guessing in your opinion that it is perfectly ok to take opiates and operate a vehicle? Even if you don’t think it is ok people do it all the time and that is ok legally. Yet you have a problem with marijuana? Lastly I have known quite a few people that smoke marijuana in the past and are otherwise good hard working people. They get up and go to work every day just like most of the rest of us. Here’s to your future wasting disease that hopefully will bring you nothing but suffering until you drift off to meet your maker. 😏

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I am often discouraged by the decrease in respect for the law we see in America over the past 100 years. At the beginning of the 20th century, everyone knew the Fed govt had no authority under the Constitution to ban alcohol, so they passed an Amendment in order to accomplish that. Then they recognized that they could not just ignore that law, since it was written into the Constitution, so they repealed that amendment. Quite proper! Just 50 years later, a President simply *declared* a “war on drugs” and the question of where that authority came from was simply ignored. The federal government does not have any authority to regulate pot, heroin, opioids, etc, and never has. Likewise, in 1934 simply EVERYONE understood that the federal government did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate any kind of firearms, thought maybe they could lie, cheat and steal their way into a *tax* scheme to accomplish what they wished, outlawing machine guns for a start. Off we go, down the slippery slope, until we arrive at the time a mental midget like Booker thinks he can just wave a magic wand and ban whatever he likes. He makes me sick.

          Heard Booker say the other day that he was the only presidential candidate who lives in low income housing, guess he’s proud of that, but I wonder how a US Senator was approved for low income housing subsidies. Sounds pretty criminal, to me.

        6. avatar 🙂 says:

          The part that is even scarier is there are more and more people that give his magic wand the power to do just that. Maybe it isn’t him that gets to hold the wand but someone else of his ilk quite possibly could be. The hard truth of the matter is the people have done this to themselves through inaction and acceptance. Things as simple as voting at every election or proposed change in law. Accepting laws that are passed without the will of the people as the final deciding factor (I have to say that today even that is dangerous for people that value their rights). People would rather be taken care of and feel safe than have freedom.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “We need to stop referring to it as a right because a right does not involve jumping through government hoops and pay to play.”

      Bullshit. Total fucking bullshit. And here comes that linguistic hairsplitting I get into that everyone hates, maybe your example here will finally get it through the heads of some others why I do this.

      The concept proposed here let’s the other side define the terms to whatever they want them to be.

      Pretty soon holding the wrong political views gets people executed and suddenly that infringement on their rights is acceptable and we change the English language to accept that behavior? We start talking about how Hitler was a great guy and all those Jews were just dirty criminals deserving to be gassed because Hitler and his government said so because life is now a privilege we don’t afford to what we define as criminals in any fucking way some asshole might want? No. Fuck that.

      The whole point of a “right” is that the definition is static and unchanging. How reality works can then be measured against the standard set in that definition. The right may be infringed or even effectively taken away entirely within the real world but we have no basis on which to argue against that if we say that governmental action changes the base definition.

      So, yeah, it’s a “right” not a fucking privilege. That right is being infringed upon which makes the government wrong and that gives us an argument to change reality to be in line with the definition rather than the other way around.

      1. avatar 🙂 says:

        Saying ALL of that changes the status quo or makes what I said any less true how exactly? Answer, it doesn’t, not one bit! It is what it is and until everyone gets on board with an agenda to institute real change in a positive direction my surmise that the foundation has been laid for things to quite possibly only get worse in 2020 still stands. If I’m wrong great, I’ll gladly be wrong on this subject. If I’m right, well let’s just hope that I’m wrong. For the people in the cheap seats, paying for a right isn’t a right, it is indeed point of fact a privilege and only those that can afford to pay get to play. Having said that I do believe my statement to be less bullshit and more truth until real change in the positive direction happens. Again it is what it is.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          The point is that you cannot change the status quo by accepting it.

          Allowing “them” to define the terms and change the yardsticks is simply accepting their argument and removing any basis for your own. If you can’t even make an argument how can you argue in a way that makes things better?

          How are you going to convince other people that you’re right if “they” can simply change the definitions so that everything you say is wrong? You can’t.

          The concept of “rights” is a measurement device. Allowing them to change it is like letting a guy change the definition of what an “inch” is so that he can walk around saying he has a nine foot cock.

        2. avatar 🙂 says:

          Good grief! I understand that rights are individual and that what the majority says shouldn’t change the fact. However we are right back to that huge pain in the ass called reality and reality says different. Now I’ve made all of those arguments to little avail at this point. Arguments such as my right to own a gun doesn’t trump someone else’s right to not own one or my right to go to church and believe as I believe doesn’t trump someone else’s right to the exact opposite. Rights are indeed individual and anyone that would say otherwise doesn’t know what a true right is and doesn’t deserve that right. There, there is a truthful compelling argument that has been said before many times by more than just me. How has it changed reality? While it may be just my opinion the answer is it hasn’t changed reality only how some people look at it.

        3. avatar 🙂 says:

          Also calling it what it is is not acceptance it is just that calling it what it is. Currently a very important part of the right to have and bare arms is indeed a privilege and no amount of verbal sparing between you and I or anyone else that knows what a right is and what it means to have that right is going to change the fact. Sadly it also doesn’t appear that verbal sparing with those that seek to remove our rights is very helpful either. While yes I’ll agree that some people have indeed changed their mind on gun rights there are still far too many that haven’t. The ones that haven’t are the ones dictating the current reality.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Well, here we are again. You and I always disagree about this one.

        There is a real-life difference between theoretic “rights”, and effective “rights”. The only “rights” a person trully possesses are those a person can effectively exercise, or personally defended. If a “right” delayed is a “right” denied; a “right” denied is effectively not a “right”. Defy government by exercising a “right” that government does not permit you to exercise, and you end up with even fewer “rights”.

        The founders declared certain rights “unalienable”, yet today “rights” are ephemeral, controlled by politicians, courts and the deep state (Swamp). Look around. Do you see hordes of citizens, in the streets, enforcing their “rights”? If we don’t want mobs to enforce rights, where do we go instead? Courts? Elections? When I was growing up, government was a rare subject of conversation (except maybe city council). Today, government is all pervasive, dominating virtually every conversation (leftists make everything political).

        If we are to keep the conversation real, talking about how “rights” are “rights” even if unavailable doesn’t really energize or enlighten the POTG, much less the public.

        1. avatar 🙂 says:

          Better stated but is what I was trying to say. It’s the very real difference between what is perceived and what actually is. In this case perception in a deceptive manner doesn’t change what actually is. That is to say I can lie to myself and say that reality doesn’t change my perception but a lie is still a lie.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s the very real difference between what is perceived and what actually is”

          Changing reality may one day change perception, but therein lies the rub; how to do it?

        3. avatar 🙂 says:

          I have no definitive answer for you. I just know that lying to myself about reality doesn’t change reality. However that lie could change my reality for the worse not better as you have already stated. Practicing my perceived rights could in fact put me in a situation where I have less rights. The very thought of having less rights because of prison doesn’t sit well with me. Who will come to get you or I out of prison for practicing those perceived rights I wonder, will it be those same people that say a perceived right is still a right regardless of what reality says? 🤔

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Who will come to get you or I out of prison for practicing those perceived rights I wonder, will it be those same people that say a perceived right is still a right regardless of what reality says?”

          Guess I have a real advantage (or disadvantage) there: not expecting anyone to get me out of prison.

        5. avatar 🙂 says:

          I would say it to be a disadvantage if you are defying the status quo laid out by the government. If you are and no one knows good for you. If you’re not than you have nothing to worry about regardless. I have done things in the past on the premise it’s better to do it and ask for forgiveness later than it is to ask for permission and be told no. In this case that premise has stronger consequences than an ass chewing. Having to endure an ass chewing was never a big deal to me. I always figured I have more ass than the person doing the chewing has teeth. However I tried very hard to only do those things that would only get me an ass chewing and so far in this stage of my life that practice has served me well.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam, sometimes I have trouble telling when you’re serious or just way too damn good at this whole devil’s advocate thing you do. Fortunately this isn’t one of those times.

          “If we are to keep the conversation real, talking about how “rights” are “rights” even if unavailable doesn’t really energize or enlighten the POTG, much less the public.”

          Indeed. We don’t need a new definition of “rights”, nor a different enforcement mechanism. We don’t even need a different voting system. As I’ve said for years: what we need a different educational system.

          How to go about that, well, I also talk about advertising and biology a lot and I take a fair bit of shit for it but every single person who tells me I’m a retard for saying that stuff has bought stuff based on advertising that plays on their biology. The antis do it too. All the fucking time. In fact every argument they advance and every spokesperson is picked with advertising in mind.

          So I’d answer the question with three questions of my own:

          Why does a team or an athlete that loses watch tape? (OK, it’s not really tape these days but you know what I mean, digital video)

          Why don’t we (POTG and other civil rights folks) do that?

          What’s the connection between evolutionary biology, the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross and our civil right’s predicament and how does “watching tape” fix that?

          Not to get all sci-fi about it, especially since we’re past the 4th now, but like a young padawan, the answer is inside you.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Regarding devil’s advocate/sarcasm, always look for goofy stuff amidst the sarc, and a caution about assumptions when devil’s advocate arises.

          Our difference regarding “rights” is that the esoteric analysis/argument does not prosper anyone. This is because “rights” are being denied in the real world in such a manner that free people cannot effectively exercise their rights.

          Inability to exercise “rights” is the real issue, not the academic debate about whether a law ignored is actually a law. Most people live in the day-to-day, not the classroom. Thus, meeting the people at their point of need is more important than getting the terms right. If you look around, you find that people are pretty certain what their “rights” are (probably whatever it is that makes them happy at the moment), and they are interested in how to get what they perceive as “rights” in hand.

          Debating effective and theoretical “rights” is a bit like the old law school trope: prosecution stands up and states, “I accuse”, while the defense attorney remains silent; what should be the verdict of the jury? It is an important lesson in jurisprudence in the US, but the jury is make up of “peers”, and peers always expect the accused to refuse to be falsley accused by mounting a defense. Guilty unless proven innocent is theory, proving innocense is the real issue for jurors.

        8. avatar 🙂 says:

          “Guilty unless proven innocent is theory, proving innocense is the real issue for jurors.”

          For appearance sake that takes the ring out of innocent until proven guilty. Which is maybe why I always thought that the justice system really in fact treated the charged as guilty until proven innocent. Without undeniable evidence or a statement of guilt how can the charged be imprisoned until proven innocent if they are indeed innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn’t that in reality be wrongful imprisonment and a cause for suit against the government? In my mind that likes to look at both sides, how it should be and how it is it absolutely should be cause for suit against the government. Does it ever really happen for those that are charged guilty and later found innocent? Do they ever get those weeks, months, or years back that they spent in a cell until they were vendicated? No not really and the people that put them there have no consequences to really speak of. Truth be told no amount of money the government may give as some kind of half ass apology will give that time back either. I may be talking out my ass here but that’s the way I see it.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The real consequences of real jurors having a real predjudice toward expecting the accused to prove innosence are ungood belly feel. But without perfect people, perfect knowledge, it is impossible to eliminate undesirable outcomes. The best we can really hope for is that jury mistakes are extrememly few, and that we do not end up at the defendant’s table.

    3. avatar Conelrad says:

      It is still a right. Just because unconstitutional laws exist to suppress it doesn’t make the right any less rightful. Use your same logic when speaking about the other rights and you’ll see how silly it seems to abandon the term right.

      1. avatar 🙂 says:

        By that same logic the government could put a fee on the first amendment. You can say whatever you want for a price. You can practice what ever religion you want as long as you pay the government to do it. Should something so heinous come to pass does that mean it’s still a right? We are talking about paying for the ability to do something so as to be legal and not get put in jail. Near as I can tell in the current climate the government says what rights are or are not and how we must behave to have those government controlled rights. Think in terms of parent and child. If the child is good and obedient then the child is rewarded. If the child is bad and disobedient the child is disciplined. Government is the parent and we are the child. The way our country as a whole operates government tells us what to do not the other way around. Should it be us telling the government what to do? Absolutely! We have lost that ability over the past 60-70 some odd years. Yes I honestly believe the mess we are in now started way back then. I can call a duck a goose but that doesn’t change the fact it is still a duck. If it sounds, looks, and walks like a privilege, what else can it be besides a privilege?

        1. avatar Geoff "It's allways good to turn a troll into a fun punch-toy" PR says:

          “By that same logic the government could put a fee on the first amendment.”

          They currently do *exactly* that.

          Have 5,000 people show up at the footsteps of the Lincoln memorial in Washington, DC to hear a speech, and see how fast you are arrested.

          You are *required* to pay a permit fee to speak. No permit, no free speech.

          As usual, 🙂 , the only thing you seem to be competent at doing is talking out of your own ass…

        2. avatar 🙂 says:

          Yep you prove my point but I’m talking out my ass. A right is something that is unimpeded a privilege is just the opposite. It’s a privilege in the real world and the real world is what matters because the real world has consequences. Now maybe in the world where the very definition of a word is all that matters and there are no consequences is a happy place to live because it gives the feel goods doesn’t change the real world. Aside from that enjoy your stay in happy land where what you say is reality. Here in reality happy land doesn’t change a single thing. If reality proves that I’m right about the foreseeable future happy land will be even less helpful. Sure thing though, I’m talking out my ass. Regardless it doesn’t change a damn thing and neither does your feel good commentary. It is what it is.

  2. avatar Mark N. says:

    Hey, come on guys, all he wants is to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Meaning YOU!

    As an aside, microstamping hasn’t solved a single crime for a simple reason: there is not one microstamping firearm on the market today. (As us Californians are all too aware as we watch the pool of available semiautomatic pistols continue shrinking, new models having been banned because none incorporate microstamping technology.)

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      True, but it’s worth noting that Maryland’s expensive 15-year experiment with ballistic fingerprinting failed to solve a single crime before it was finally scrapped.

      https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I am pretty sure that the one in NY had a similar fate. But the controllers keep dreaming up new ideas to make each gun so unique you can always catch the bad guy. That this will never happpen has yet to deter them.

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Just need to make bad guys willing to send in notice to the government database when they steal a new gun. And, since it would violate the 5th Amendment rights of felons, domestic abusers, drug users, etc. to force them to register, it would have to be voluntary based on some sort of incentive. About as realistic as any of these quick fixes to address “gun violence”.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Mr. Smith, in 2002 you bought a Barkmore 2000 assault BB gun, which has been used in a heinous crime. What do you have to say for yourself?”

        “Huh. I don’t remember that. Have a nice day.” SLAM.

        You still would have proven exactly NOTHING, even if the impossible concept worked. The very idea is so stunningly stupid as to be unbelievable. But the constant temptation to spend other people’s money is apparently overpowering to some of us. I’m guessing that none of the legislators lost a nickel chasing this boondoggle, though some of them may have profited from the contracts involved.

  3. avatar Imayeti says:

    Meh. Politicians lie just for practice. He’ll get those laws passed when Mexico pays for the wall.

  4. avatar Tim says:

    Cory Booker is *definitely* not bi-curious.

    1. avatar Bubba5 says:

      He’s way past curious. Maybe Lindsey Graham will be his VP. Moar gun control, moar war!

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      He’s spent his life dreaming of hanging with a bunch of sweaty gladiators.

  5. avatar Dude says:

    So say they implement microstamping technology. Wouldn’t a criminal just find a way to tamper with that?

    I honestly don’t think lawmakers even care. This isn’t about criminality. I think they want to destroy the firearm industry in general, even for law abiding citizens. At this point, it’s more about destroying political opposition.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Dude,

      At this point, it’s more about destroying the political opposition.

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!

    2. avatar BruceT says:

      If it was micro stamping on the firing pin or any where else, a little sand paper and it is gone. Weapon is not effected. Ammo is not effected.
      It just increases the cost of the firearm or ammo.

  6. avatar Dude says:

    Booker wants to:

    “Provide federal funds for research on gun violence and increase funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
    Increase federal funding for local initiatives, including law enforcement programs, dedicated to addressing and combatting gun violence.”

    …because throwing money at a problem is easy bragging rights for having done something; just look at the amount of money thrown at the education system, and the way lawmakers brag about it, even though we don’t get good results.

    And let’s not forget this gem (though they honestly deserve it):

    “Have the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigate the National Rifle Association (NRA) to conclude “whether certain activities recently reported in the news media should lead to revocation of its tax-exempt status.” Booker did not elaborate on what “certain activities” means and his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from INSIDER. “

  7. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I didn’t use to be a single issue voter. Hey Democrats and spineless Republicans: The American people will not tolerate additional gun control, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig. Molon Labe!

  8. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Monkey Boy Booker has about as much chance of being elected President as I do.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Right up until the 2016 presidential race was called, the *experts* thought the same way about Trump…

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        The “experts” inside of the Beltway only get one vote (notionally) each. What they think has no relevance. They VOTERS knew they were voting for Donald Trump over the crazy of shebat.

        Booker has no chance of getting the demtard nomination. The 2nd dumbest in and crowd and the affirmative action quoteaboy has been a failure at everything he has ever attempted.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Booker has no chance of getting the demtard nomination.”

          It really doesn’t matter which Dimwitocrat gets the nomination, ever candidate not chosen will align themselves and their supporters with whoever the nominee is. You will never see a leftist “Never whomever” movement. It is the power of the combined candidates that we need to counter, not just a single person. And…the leftists will not be discouraged by losing in 2016. The election of Trump forced a sea change among the Dimwitocrats, and the crazies are in control. They may be crazy, but Trump is the perfect Republicrat ‘Hilary’ (doesn’t matter who the left nominates, so long as Trump loses). Craziness is not to be discounted as a political force among crazy people.

  9. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

    Corey Booker is the best NJ has to offer.
    He’s just an example of the bass-ackward progressivism that’s driven people to relocate elsewhere. When I leave for Texas the Orthodox Nyackers from Brooklyn who buy my house and all those sanctuary SNAPseekers can pay my share of the income taxes.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “With this [sweeping civilian disarmament] proposal, Senator Cory Booker [is] literally throwing a constitutionally-enumerated right into the trash, and he knows it.” — Alan Gottlieb

    Sounds to me like a violation of the federal law, “Deprivation of rights under color of law.” And if his minions set out to do just that, then it also qualifies for the sister law of conspiring to deprive someone of civil rights.

    Since enforcement of that law would definitely come with threat of death for non-compliance, that is a felony punishable by the death penalty. Wouldn’t that be interesting if Senator Booker won the Presidency, somehow got this law passed, tried to enforce it, and then faced the death penalty for depriving us of our rights under color of law?

    1. avatar DrDKW says:

      Wonder if I should wait for the movie?

  11. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Booker is just another insignificant little chigger, with delusions of grandeur.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I rather think of his as a would be insignificant petty tyrant,next tyrant.

  12. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yo, Book, how does this stop people who illegally used arms now and will in the future? Question, if we went along with you would the national license also be a national carry permit? If not, why not with all that background check. But you obviously don’t comprehend squat about the Constitution and have spent far too much time in criminal New Jersey. Check the cities where most of the gun crime takes place before you start running your mouth about “national” stuff. There are about 8 cities you could concentrate on and reduce gun “violence and drug/gang violence by, say, 60%. Oh, and you don’t disturb the rights of millions for a true minority, in ANYTHING, sexual or otherwise.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Said it b4, say it again…booker is an idiot of epic proportion…

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Yet another un American DemoCommie,since Americas Constitution doesn’t suit him and his fellow travelers,he is free to leave for a chit hole of his choice where he will find happiness,or.

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    Any questions that need to be answered in regards to this clown. Can be answered by simply saying Newark, New Jersey.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Any questions that need to be answered in regards to this clown. ”

      To which of us clowns do you refer?

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        I guess I need to be a BIT more specific. Booker the Clown.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I guess I need to be a BIT more specific. Booker the Clown.”

          Rats. Missed the cut again.

  16. avatar MLee says:

    Booker? Never heard of him.

  17. avatar Political gristle says:

    Y’all say do not comply with repugnant laws, sure it might work for individuals.
    Say u have to background check to buy ammo, Do you think big box is going to break da LAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW?
    progs don’t need to take guns, just the bullets.
    Cabela’s is going to comply with bg check for ammo. Cuz it’s da LAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!.

    *( da LAAAAAAWWWWW) said like Silvester Stallone in a deep gutteral voice with a Boston accent.

    1. avatar 🙂 says:

      And there’s more reality of the current situation. What we (pro gun folks) like to call a right the government and the majority change to privilege. Jump through hoops A-Z and pay your money like a good subservient subject and you can play with the other subservient subjects. If not you don’t get to play and if you try to play without paying you get put in the corner (a cell). The problem isn’t that I’m affected much by this current status quo because I pay the Masta like a good slave sos I can play with the other slaves too. The problem is that there are others that can’t afford to pay to play that also shouldn’t have to and don’t get to play at all.

      1. avatar Political gristle says:

        True, but a few of “us” can ” not comply” for so long.
        ALL of us need to be on the same page.
        If we say no, then the box stores, police, citizens, gun/gun accessory manufacturers must be on board too.

        Stand together or let our natural rights be taken one by one.

        1. avatar 🙂 says:

          Stand together or let our natural rights be taken one by one.

          I don’t disagree I also don’t see it happening either. The NFA was enacted long before most of us were born. The firearms act of 1968 was enacted before I was born. The firearms owner protection act which unfortunately includes the Hughes amendment was enacted when I was just a kid and still didn’t have a say. Now here I am grown with some years behind me as well as some experience and not wanting to make those same mistakes made by those before me. Why? Because I don’t want my grandkids or great grandkids saying how they heard about this country having individual rights but since grandpa or great grandpa and his peers couldn’t agree on what a right is those individual rights are taboo to even talk about let alone practice. Not possible? I just pointed out 3 infringements that I had absolutely nothing to do with or even so much as a say in but I still have to abide by them.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          No, despite your twisting of the facts, you definitely do NOT have to abide by them. Feel free to take the laws which offend you to the Supreme Court, most have never been tried. You can do that just as easily as anybody else could have 50 years ago. Not talking about courts? Pick up your rifle and oppose those laws with your life, if that is what you think should be done. Sitting in the corner whining and blaming others is an occupation for a pussy. If you are claiming that *I* should have taken some sort of action in the past, show me!: go ahead and take that action NOW. What is stopping you, that was not stopping me in years past?

  18. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The currency of Freedom is blood, not words.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      True and unfortunately the tyrant is far more willing to pay in blood for power most of the time.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        well, yeah, as long as its somebody else’s blood.

  19. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    It would be nice if Trump fought as hard for HIS people as hard as Obama/Booker/etc fight for THEIR people.

  20. avatar Bubba5 says:

    Vote for Cory if you want the entire country like Newark. This guy couldn’t come up with a policy to escape a wet paper bag so he thinks he can ride into the White House with a cockeyed scheme to criminalize gun owners. He’s tougher on guns than anyone! Let’s start some grass roots support! Or maybe he’s trying to get Mikey Goonberg’s attention in the next stall over.

  21. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Cory Booker is a black race traitor. He is the perfect candidate for the racist white socialist progressive Liberal.

    He is a great modern example of a black elected leader who does what he is told by his white Liberal money benifactors. If elected he will keep the blacks “controlled”.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Interesting. I believe that Dem politicians, from what I see in CA, are racist towards their own minorities who they deem not rich or smart enough to think for themselves. This general idea of republicans being racist is media perpetuated. Myself being a minority and Republican, I believe the Dem Politicians are the racists.

      1. avatar Bubba5 says:

        You’re not wrong. Blue California had led the country in unemployment rates for African-Americans for many years. It was usually double the national rate including during the recent recession. I haven’t looked at that data in a few years so maybe they’ve cleaned up their act. They also racially segregate their correctional facilities which helps perpetuate prison gang formation along racial lines as well as regular rioting between those gangs. Modern liberals care for the well being of minorities the same way they care about the working man… not at all.
        Cockeyed Cory did nothing for African-American people(or the city in general) in Newark as mayor. It’s too bad T-Bone* didn’t fix his eye with his Problem Solva.

  22. avatar Senator Fartacus says:

    Licensing is registration! Which is illegal under #2a and US Code..but, he failed 1st grade.

    Hitler too said registration would make the streets safer….4 the SS when they came to round u up!

  23. avatar Mr No says:

    You folks forget where he’s from the great American toxic waste dump. He’s been sniffing the junk for years and this is the result. These Jack Asses need a new battle cry.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email