Image via Pixabay

The idea of having to apply for a license to exercise your Second Amendment right is abhorrent to anyone who can honestly consider themselves pro-gun. It should be. However, it seems to be all the rage once again among the anti-gun establishment. We have presidential candidates backing it, for example.

However, that can be dismissed as campaign dreams. It may well be something that gets said during the campaign, but not considered likely to happen by even the candidate proposing it.

And it shouldn’t be. But when those same Democrats are proposing that same legislation in Congress, there’s every reason to take them seriously.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have debuted a proposal to help mandate that those who want a handgun first be approved for a permit.

The legislation, backed by Dems in both the House and Senate, would encourage more states to adopt licensing schemes like Connecticut’s handgun purchasing law, which requires a special renewable permit to purchase any revolver or pistol. Dubbed the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act, the bill was introduced by U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy of Connecticut along with U.S. Reps. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn and Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

“States require licenses to drive a car in order to protect public safety – requiring a license to buy a handgun should be a no-brainer,” said Raskin.

Except, of course, for two things.

One, driving has never been held up as a right. Never. It’s classified as a privilege. The Second Amendment, however, enshrines gun ownership as a right, thus making the two things completely dissimilar.

Second, Raskin is wrong about licenses being required to operate a car. That’s not technically true. A license is required to operate a car on a public roadway.

All over the country, as you read this, there are people under the age of 16 operating vehicles on farms. There are unlicensed drivers using vehicles on private property all over the place, and the law does nothing about it. Why? Because it’s not illegal.

The requirement for a license only applies when you’re driving on public roads. On private roads, such as the roadways between fields, no one cares.

But Raskin is backing legislation that would require people to approach the government with hat in hand and ask for permission to purchase a handgun. This isn’t requiring a license to operate at a public range or anything–at least then the comparison to driving might have some similarities–but an attempt to restrict gun ownership.

That’s all it is.

Once again, it will only apply to those inclined to follow the law. Criminals aren’t about to get licenses. They’re going to keep buying on the black market where they’ve always gotten their guns. For them, nothing would change.

And anyone with half a brain should know that.

So why this push for licensing? What good would come of it? Why push for this now of all times?

If there’s an upside here, it’s that while there has been public support for universal background checks and red flag laws, the anti-gun Democrats may be overplaying their hand. They think that the public’s backing of some gun control will extend to all gun control. They are mistaken, and I suspect we’ll see how mistaken come November of next year.