I keep harping on this one item all the time. There is not one person who can deny what I am about to write, is false.
Back in the day, we had the right to freely travel wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted. That right included all the various (at that time) means to travel with.
By foot? Check.
By Horse? Check.
By Carriage? Check.
By wagon? Check.
By Boat or Ship? Check.
If we could buy the item of transportation, we could use it without the say-so of any government body. Ownership of the item guaranteed the right to use the item for the purpose for which we bought the item. It was our right.
Then came the "horseless carriage." Mass production changed the nature of this particular game. Prices of the device came down to the point that ordinary people could afford the device. One didn't need to own lots of land to feed the beast. Nor any of the other impediments to having living animals. A whole new way to travel was introduced and people embraced this new method with zeal.
Registration of those vehicles used in commerce, was not an afterthought. It had already been implemented in ages past. So the various authorities demanded that those in commerce be registered. Shortly after this, licensees were demanded of those who drove these commercial vehicles.
However, those who had registered commercial vehicles and those who were licensed to drive these vehicles began demanding improvements to the structure of the roads they traveled upon. Some cities, counties and then the States, found that they could induce the people to register their vehicles, on a voluntary basis, in order to help pay for these improvements.
In short order, many of the governments found this to be a "cash cow." As the improvements did not cost as much as the money the "volunteers" were giving. By the 1930's, legislation began sweeping the States to make registrations (a personal property tax, if the truth be known), mandatory.
The next problem was that traffic began to get much heavier, in and around the metropolitan centers. Accidents were commonplace, as there were no rules of the road. So rules were authored and voluntary licenses were issued, on the premise that one who passed the licensing tests knew the rules by which to drive and were thus immune from certain aspects of lawsuits arising form accidents.
Another cash cow. States saw the money flowing in and passed laws taking full authority of registrations and licensing away from local authorities and occupied the entire field of public and private movement upon the public roads.
By the end of the forties, most States had mandatory registration. Laws were in place that made it unlawful to place a private vehicle on a public road, without first being registered. Another aspect of this, was reciprocity between the States was negotiated and became a reality. By the end of the fifties, drivers licences became mandatory in all States. Reciprocity was in effect in all States.
The only thing that involved the Federal government was interstate transport. They were there at the beginning with the first DOT rules being made back in the twenties.
By the start of the sixties, what was once a right, was now an established privilege. All with the consent of the very people who once had this unalienable right to travel. Unless it involved a mechanically driven vehicle. We had no right to take that vehicle upon the public roads, unless we first registered the vehicle and then registered ourselves (as fit to drive by the rules of the road).
How do I know this all to be true? I've studied the history of automobiles and our mobile society. It's all there. Out in the open, if you only care to look for yourselves.
This is what is wrong with background checks, registration of first our guns and next ourselves. If you don't see the parallel, then you haven't studied your history.
Those of you that don't see anything wrong with having to prove you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right, are as guilty as our ancesters who never thought about giving up their right to travel.
The rest of you can keep arguing about the "reasonableness" of such laws. I'm against all of them. They ultimately and irrevocably reduce the right to a privilege.
Granted, the NICS check will not be going away. Nor will the 4473's. They have been and will continue to be found constitutional. But that doesn't mean I have to like them. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I have to give in to more restrictions. Shame on you, if you hold a contrary view, as you obviously haven't done your homework, as it regards a conversion of a right to a privilege.