Presidential hopeful Cory Booker defended gun control during Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate, arguing that if you need a license to drive a car, you should also need a license to own a firearm.

The New Jersey senator's comprehensive gun control reform would require a safety course and extensive background check. Only after passing both of these requirements would potential consumers be awarded a license, which would then allow them to legally purchase and own a firearm.

“I am sick and tired of hearing about thoughts and prayers,” Booker said. “It’s time for bold action.”

At first glance, Booker’s proposal isn’t unreasonable. Expanded and detailed background checks have been endorsed by both political parties, and even President Trump considered banning bump stocks at one point.

At fault is Booker’s misconstruction of Second Amendment rights and what exactly they entail. Under the Constitution, there is a fundamental distinction between rights and enumerated powers. Acting on rights clearly listed in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to bear arms, does not require the government’s permission. But the government’s regulation of such rights does require permission — permission that must be granted by the people.

It’s no surprise Second Amendment rights are hotly contested. But reducing, and in some cases eliminating, the peoples’ sovereignty expands the scope of government and threatens additional rights we now enjoy. Who’s to say that the right to free speech won’t need a license if this pattern continues? What about a license to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures?

The more we allow government to define and restrict the scope of our rights, the more freedoms we will lose. This is about more than bump stocks and school safety. This is about the Constitution and the people who sanction it.