Cory Booker proposes national license for all gun owners

[Cyber Liberty]

Not anymore...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html

Nice find!  Kudos.  That makes it 100%.

[txradioguy]

Nice find!  Kudos.  That makes it 100%.

They had a chance this weekend to remain a beacon for RKBA in Europe and they voted against their own self interest and sided with the Borg.

[andy58-in-nh]

National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.

And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms. 

Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.   

[txradioguy]

National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.

And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms. 

Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.   

 

[Gefn]

NJ bookmark

[Jazzhead]

Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level.   The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.   

Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A,  as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia,  in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion.   And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States. 

Can such reasonable regulation include registration?   Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level.   The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.   

Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A,  as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia,  in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion.   And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States. 

Can such reasonable regulation include registration?   Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.   

Then you agree Booker is dead wrong on this?

[Bill Cipher]

National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.

And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms. 

Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.   

No, it wouldn’t. 

[Bill Cipher]

Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level.   The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.   

Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A,  as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia,  in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion.   And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States. 

Can such reasonable regulation include registration?   Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.   

Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan?  Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause. 

[thackney]

Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan?  Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause.

How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?

[Cyber Liberty]

No, it wouldn’t.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?

For the same reason a farmer can be prohibited from selling his own crops in his own State, I suppose.

[XenaLee]

Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan?  Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause.

A national/federal gun registration mandate is a blatant infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.  What part of that "shall not infringe" are some folks too duh-uh to comprehend?   

[Bill Cipher]

How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?

If it uses, or affects, or at one time passed through, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, it is amenable to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause. 

If a good initially travelled in interstate commerce, then subsequent commercial transactions with it are amenable to regulation. 

One needn’t even go as far as Wickard v. Filburn.

[Bill Cipher]

A national/federal gun registration mandate is a blatant infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.  What part of that "shall not infringe" are some folks too duh-uh to comprehend?   

How so?  How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?

[Bill Cipher]

[verga]

I only need one instance to prove the logical fallacy of equating registration with confiscation.  Those who would prove the equivalence, on the other hand, need 100%, so even 9 out of ten still fails.

If you were being intellectually honest given the preponderance of evidence your response should be: It hAsn't led to confiscation for the Swiss...YET. But given your stubborn refusal to admit your error.......

[thackney]

If it uses, or affects, or at one time passed through, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, it is amenable to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause. 

If a good initially travelled in interstate commerce, then subsequent commercial transactions with it are amenable to regulation. 

One needn’t even go as far as Wickard v. Filburn.

Thank you.  So in reading at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111, Wickard v. Filburn, it seems the justification comes down to: "...The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...."

If you make that argument about gun registration of a father handing down a rifle to his daughter, it leads me to believe that that gun registration in general is an infringement on ownership.  If taken in the aggregate, registration would need to have a substantial effect on the commerce for them to apply.

[XenaLee]

How so?  How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?

Many states already have a form of "registration" when you purchase a weapon.  It targets law-abiding citizens only... since criminals won't bother to get their guns legally.

A national or federal "list" of law-abiding gun owners is unnecessary... unless the time comes if/when the tyrannical left (Democrats) wants to (or tries to) start their wet-dream of gun confiscation.

You know all this.... yet here you are.... pretending.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.  It is deliberate... isn't it?   

[verga]

Not anymore...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html

@Bill Cipher waiting for you to admit that registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time. Not holding my breath, but I am waiting.

[XenaLee]

How so?  How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?

Lol.... your question reminded me of a BS promise the radical left made over and over again....  right before they infringed upon Americans' rights by ramming through ObamaCare.  "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor".  Remember that one?

Logical thinking folks can connect the dots to yet another BS promise by the RL... made at some point in the future, no doubt.... about a national/federal gun registration "list".

"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns".   

Yeah.... riiiiight!

[Bill Cipher]

Thank you.  So in reading at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111, Wickard v. Filburn, it seems the justification comes down to: "...The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...."

If you make that argument about gun registration of a father handing down a rifle to his daughter, it leads me to believe that that gun registration in general is an infringement on ownership.  If taken in the aggregate, registration would need to have a substantial effect on the commerce for them to apply.

If you say so. 

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher waiting for you to admit that registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time. Not holding my breath, but I am waiting.

Why should I admit something that isn’t true?

[Bill Cipher]

Lol.... your question reminded me of a BS promise the radical left made over and over again....  right before they infringed upon Americans' rights by ramming through ObamaCare.  "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor".  Remember that one?

Logical thinking folks can connect the dots to yet another BS promise by the RL... made at some point in the future, no doubt.... about a national/federal gun registration "list".

"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns".   

Yeah.... riiiiight!

I see you failed to answer the question.  Nice try. 

[XenaLee]

I see you failed to answer the question.  Nice try.

Typical leftie deflection.... since (I know) you know that the infringement is forcing law-abiding Americans to put their names on a FEDERAL list... that is not only unnecessary, but an unconstitutional abuse of power.  But then... that's the idiot left (Democrats) all over.  Abusing power that they should never have or never have been given.