CA Senator Diane Feinstein: Why I Oppose National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Senator Diane Feinstein (courtesy breitbart.com)

TTAG reader MK contacted U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein to ask her support for national concealed carry reciprocity. (I know, right?) The email he received from the California Democrat – who never met a gun control law she didn’t like – was less than enthusiastic . . .

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015” (S. 498).  I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond . . .

On February 12, 2015, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which would allow an individual who has been issued a concealed carry permit in one state to carry his or her weapon in any other state that issues concealed carry permits.  This legislation would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states.

For example, it would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued by the State of Alabama, which does not require an applicant to undergo training to safely operate a firearm, or by the State of Arkansas, which allows individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor, such as choking another person, to obtain a concealed carry license if the offense occurred more than five years prior to the application.

California sets a high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit.  While felons are excluded from obtaining a concealed carry permit in any state, California’s rules disqualify individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor, those who are subject to a temporary restraining order, and minors, among others, from obtaining a concealed carry permit.  Applicants must also undergo at least four hours of safety training.  I oppose any legislation that would interfere with California’s ability to enforce these standards.

Again, thank you for your letter.  Knowing your views is important to me, and I hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you.  If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my office in Washington DC at (202) 224-3841 or online at http://feinstein.senate.gov.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

comments

  1. avatar Jolly Roger Out says:

    Right, right. Wouldn’t want to interrupt those bastions of peace in Oakland and Los Angeles.

    1. avatar Idaho Bob says:

      I lived in CA for 20 years. LA and Orange county police are not condtioned to interact with peacefully armed citizens. I would be very nervous telling a cop that I was carrying. In Idaho, tell a cop that I am armed and they say “So am I”. And nothing else happens.

      1. avatar Tomyironmane says:

        That’s because in Idaho cops are used to seeing the folks that they interact with as other people, not scum, or subjects of The State

        1. avatar Ben says:

          Conversely, many Orange and LA county cops probably deal with more scum than Idaho cops do.

    2. avatar Jerry ball says:

      Maybe its time to balance the training we get from state to state

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Indeed. The constitutionally appropriate balance is *zero* required state training in order to exercise RKBA.

      2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        I am of 2 minds on this. “shall not be infringed” settles the training requirement as not constitutional.

        On the other hand, if you go buy your gun, and there is a voucher included in for a weekend class of safe handling, basic care/storage and beginning marksman ship – then I think its a good deal. You can go if you want/need to. Your not required to go, but if you feel you want to learn a bit about what you just purchased, then you got a free class to go to.

        we have new people buying guns, who may have had several generations of living gun free. The parents nor the grand parents taught them anything about guns, so mistakes will be made. They need someone to teach them the basics at least. As for who teaches, I say let the private sector do it. The Voucher you get can be turned in with your taxes and treated as a donation, say $400 (for 2 days of training).

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Except that negligent firearms discharges, and the accidental deaths that follow, simply aren’t anything more than a trivial risk. And sufficient training requires no more than five minutes.

        2. avatar mountocean says:

          I’m with Chip. Someone can sit through two weeks of training and still be a jackass. On the other hand someone who takes their responsibilities seriously and reads a book or has a friend show them how can remain diligent and safe for a lifetime. Not to say professional training with the proper mindset isn’t beneficial, it just isn’t necessary (or a guarantor) from a safety standpoint.

        3. avatar Royle says:

          The constitution actually requires the uniformity of firearms training, as stated in the first part of the amendment. The second part is what makes it so the keeping and bearing can’t be infringed. The problem is that Congress things such as Feinstein have decided that they don’t want the responsibility of training everyone to the same standard. There should be uniform training but it should be free to all.

        4. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

          Do not ever allow muzzle to point at anything you do not intend to shoot at.
          Do not ever place you finger on trigger until you are ready to shoot.
          Do not ever carry gun without manual safety loaded with trigger unprotected
          Always double check that a gun is unloaded when it is supposed to be.
          Do not allow access to your gun by those who should not have access.
          Training complete, enjoy your gun.

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        The only possible constitutional way to do that would be for Congress to decide that for the sake of proper discipline of the militia, everyone needed to go through a standard period of basic military training.

    3. avatar George McNeely says:

      Right… so you oppose a REAL Constitutional Right whilst supporting a fake one? (Gay Marriage, Obamacare)

      Rot in your everlasting Hades….

    4. avatar Richard Staccone says:

      She is disgusting, and undeniable proof that we desperately need term limits for all elected politicians. She has become a joke. You would think after all these years she would clearly see that her position on the firearms issue is wrong, and realize gun laws do more harm than good and are actually dangerous to our citizens along with a violation of our rights. She has made a few good decisions early in her career, (she has offset them with huge blunders). She is burnt out and just in the way now, sucking up all the wealth and perks that go with being a politician. We can’t afford her any more she is a burden and an embarrassment. If she hasn’t learned that gun laws do not work after all this time, and making more of them only imposes on our citizens and do nothing to affect crime, she is long past the time to be shown the exit door.

    5. avatar Don Banjo says:

      Not really her call, she works for the people of California, not the other way around.

      don

  2. avatar Nate says:

    Surprise!

  3. avatar JeffR says:

    So … because of states’ rights? But I thought every good Dem viewed that as code for racism.

    1. avatar Rich K. says:

      Libtards like to twist things so that they ONLY apply to things they support and do not apply to things they oppose. For example, “Freedom of Speech” only applies when said speech supports leftist ideals and causes, but when freedom of speech is exercised so that it expresses decent American values it is denounced as “hate speech”, whether it truly is or not, in an effort to shame and embarrass the opposition into silence.

      1. avatar Herman says:

        Have you ever read Saul D. Alinsky’s rules for Radicals? Rule # 5, Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon, “There is no defense”. Its infuriating, it also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. Like rule # 4, “Make the enemy live up to their own rules”. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30 thousand letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all their own rules. Guess what enemy they they are talking about. Like Valerie Jarrett said, they are going to make America a more Sharia compliant Country, by using or Freedom of Religion in America against itself.

        1. avatar Stuki moi says:

          I’d take a few hundred pages of Sharia over a few million pages of “secular law” any day. Fewer laws, lower taxes. And empirically, pickup trucks “we” are barred from buying, kitted with beltguns we are ditto. For all the silly fearmongering by Those About to Leech, Sharia is within a rounding error of biblical, as in at the minimum half sane, law. Something current state and federal code sure as heck can’t lay claim to.

  4. avatar Another Robert says:

    Hell, at least she answered. And no, it was no surprise.

    1. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

      They always respond, or at least their interns do with it mostly being a copy and paste. God knows how many times iv written Schumer, and every time the response includes a part where he claims he supports the second amendment because he helped secure more federal grounds for hunting, same copy and paste statement always. Yep, that proves it. Schumer supports the second amendment because of that.

  5. avatar Katy says:

    I’m pretty sure Texas would prefer that legislation (or judicial opinion) not interfere with its standards of marriage.

    What is a bit freaky is that I was going to make a joke about the standard I’m referring to being cousins getting married, but the Mighty Wiki tells me that there are states that don’t recognize those marriages.

    1. avatar Felix says:

      But all states recognize both out of state and out of country marriages and divorces, other than plural marriages.

      Why not recognize out of state CCW?

      1. avatar Katy says:

        I get your point, but it looks like they don’t have to recognize cousin marriages.

        1. avatar Jon says:

          Not Yet, but it is coming right along with plural marriage!!!!!

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Plural marriages are probably coming–I think there was already a Utah case saying that the laws banning them are unconstitutional. And there really is no reason to ban them from a legal or PUBLIC policy perspective (as opposed to religious/moral objections that ignore a long human history of plural marriages, even in the Christian Bible). But cousin marriages are a different story, as the risk of severe genetic anomalies are significantly increased in relationships in the first or second degree, which is precisely why they have been largely banned (except among various aristocrats in certain cultures, such as Ancient Egypt) for millennia. So no, there are good public policy/health reasons to continue to ban such relationships, just as much as to ban incest.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          But now, thanks to SCOTUS, procreation is no longer a fundamental reason for marriages. If the civil rights of homosexuals are violated by prohibiting their marriage, then so are the civil rights of cousins, and so are the civil rights of polygamists, and so are the civil rights of NAMBLA.

        4. avatar Gunr says:

          Mark N
          What is this “incest” you speak of?
          Is that the new game the whole family can play?

        5. avatar Felix says:

          @Chip Bennet: If marriage were only about procreation, why would you let old folks marry, or anyone sterile? Why not mandate divorce if no kids within a certain timeframe, or after any kids have become adults?

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You’re arguing a point I’ve not made. I never said that the only point of marriage was procreation. However, throughout history, the primary purpose of marriage was for procreation, and formation of the cellular unit of society: the family.

          I don’t think anything should be mandated. I’ve been pretty consistent in supporting state recognition of civil unions for all, and church recognition of marriage – each serving its own purpose.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        What the hell! Plural marriages might not be that bad? Get some more guys to marry your old lady, and then when she splits, the alimony payments will be split amongst all!

  6. avatar mike oregon says:

    Okay, our wise and great leaders know what’s best. They have done great with ruining…oops I meant running everything else.

  7. avatar doesky2 says:

    California sets a high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit.

    Well some states had set a bare-minimally low bar for what constituted a marriage and apparently SCOTUS thought that was too high.

    Why do you get to set such a high bar? Oh….State rights for me and not for thee. Oh, gotcha.

    1. avatar John A Bowen says:

      Should read: “California sets a high bar for it’s citizens to access their natural, civil and constitutionally protected rights.”

  8. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Right because gay marriage is enshrined in the constitution as an exception to states’ rights.

    As I told some pro-gay rights anti-gunners, cannot have it both ways. States rights or not. I love that Diane’s arguments talk about the “high bar” in california when she had a ccw herselfr and it is up to discretion of an ELECTED sheriff (translation: campaign donation whore). Funny how the poor are left out

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      It’s true. Half the countries in the world have higher murder rates, but we can’t be compared to them, no matter how similar our circumstances, because they are “third world.” Of course we are not allowed to call California (the third largest economy in the world) a “third world state” because of their high crime and poverty rates, even though we know that hollywood, mass agriculture, and realty pull most of that economic weight. It’s the same excuse england would use if the hooligans started running tony montana levels of drugs and murder; “but…SAFETY NET!”

      1. avatar the ruester says:

        ^other ways the poor get left out.

    2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Elected gays have never supported the 2 amendment. They support the 1st amendment for their speech only. They have never supported property rights. Bums have taken over private houses and the city does nothing in San Francisco.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Elected gays have never supported the 2 amendment.”

        I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

        Plenty in the LBGT community value the 2A.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          With apologies to The BlogFather…

          I look forward to a day when the gay, Wiccan couple who run a chapel can argue caliber in a Starbucks with the hetero, Christian couple they refused to marry, while the only people who get P O-ed overhearing all that are the cross-fitting Vegans who hate everybody.

          Senator Feinstein is not bringing us closer to this day.

  9. avatar doesky2 says:

    Evil must thrive on bile and piss.

    The ammo and fireworks businesses are going to rake it in when she croaks.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Your forgetting the never ending supply of poli-critters waiting to take her place.

      1. avatar Rich K. says:

        Politicians are like diapers – they must be changed frequently, and for the same reason.

  10. avatar David Stadler says:

    An let me tell you why we oppose Senator Diane Feinstein, woops, that would be a full length novel. When will these gin control idiots realize its not legal gun owners causing mass shootings, car jackings, home invasions, and GUN FREE ZONES. Are we going to continue, despite all of these innocent victims of mass shootings, to pack children and adults into close quarters like sardines without providing protection or arming responsible adults. If we do, the next innocent mass shooting victims in a school, university, hospital, post office, or church are our fault!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      When will these gin control idiots realize its not legal gun owners causing mass shootings, car jackings, home invasions, and GUN FREE ZONES.

      They know, David. The blather coming from them is for consumption by low intelligence voters and border-jumpers.

    2. avatar LongPurple says:

      The only “gin control” I support is the addition of a dash of Rose’s lime juice, then fill with Canada Dry tonic.

      Sorry — couldn’t resist.

  11. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    Yep, this is why I cant wait until it passes, and its definitely coming. My NYC laws will become pointless.

  12. avatar Geoff says:

    Meanwhile California State Senator Leland Yee pleads guilty to corruption.
    Too bad the gun running charge was dropped.
    www dot weaselzippers dot us/227990-former-democrat-ca-state-senator-leland-yee-pleads-guilty-in-corruption-case-gun-running-charges-dropped/

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      I’m sure the prosecutors had their reasons

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I’m sure the prosecutors had their reasons”

        Yes, it looks like they did.

        Read the article he referenced:

        “Yee’s plea deal avoids a detailed exploration at trial of his political dealing, and likely reduced his potential punishment, while the government will not be forced to detail the scope of an undercover FBI probe that crossed paths with numerous high-profile figures who were not implicated in any wrongdoing, including former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.”

        It keeps the investigation alive on other political corruption investigations…

  13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Abortion, ObamaCare, gay marriage, and the right to keep and bear arms: one of these is not like the others. DiFi is the epitome of a hypocrite.

  14. avatar geoffb5 says:

    “[A]nd minors, among others”

    I’d thought that minors were forbidden under federal law from owning handguns so what would a minor be carrying concealed? An AR?

  15. avatar Omer Baker says:

    Typical politician cognitive disconnect. Certain rights are acceptable, while others are not.

  16. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

    It’s interesting when the left decides that states rights become relevant again…. When it’s convenient.

  17. avatar kap says:

    Another piece of Crap from the Land of the whispering bush, {pst hey buddy} what more do you need to know? other than a Big Government Anti American Democrat freak!

  18. avatar Brad says:

    Gee, the other 49 states HAVE to recognize the driver’s licenses that her “high bar” state doles out to anyone with a pulse (and ZERO driving training). But, that’s “progressive” thinking for you.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      But but but GUNS ARE DANGEROUS!!
      When are these idiots going to recognize that all states (other than Constitutional Carry) require a background check, and that CCW carriers are less likely to commit crimes than the genreal population?

  19. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    As per usual, I don’t put any stock in anyone that is oblivious of human history, war, and the evil that is out there.

    This is why I carry:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/one-of-the-most-amazing-videos-ever-the-fallen-of-world-war-ii-watch.html

  20. avatar Joe ker says:

    Ok then Ms Feinstein – In your opinion, should Shaneen Allen been prosecuted then, to the full extent of the law, and put in prison for 10 years, for simply driving over state lines? Because that is exactly what you are saying. Or do you make exceptions as you see fit?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No exceptions. She had an evil gun, and she violated NJ’s right to exclude her and her evil gun. Throw away the key. “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn in your guns.”

  21. avatar MiniMe says:

    Will somebody PLEASE throw a bucket of water on this witch already?

  22. avatar Dave says:

    I’m baffled by all the negative comments. Read her objection. As an analogy, vehicles sold in CA must meet air quality standards that are tougher than Federal standards. Vehicles registered in CA from other states must meet CA’s emission standards.

    Not all CA residents agree with this, nor does it make sense in those areas without air pollution problems. But we’ve learned to live with the regulations and air quality has improved.

    The *real* question to me is, if a CCW holder from state X completed the California’s firearm training requirements (which could be completed in his/her state), would DiFi support such legislation? She doesn’t say, but her response doesn’t rule it out either. I’ll let TTAG know her response.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “But we’ve learned to live with the regulations “

      That’s YOUR problem. You accept that The State is the true arbiter of proper behavior.

      Just because you’ve learned to live with (and accept) rampant Statism does not make it (a) right in general or (b) right for the rest of us.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I’ll save you the time. DiFi sincerely doesn’t give a sh!t about gun rights for anyone other than the very few select government agents and their friends who are *approved* by the massive bureaucracy of the CA state government. She’ll deny your rights and assertion thereof as reliably as a Glock 19 eating factory 9mm ammo. But she’ll be very polite and cordial about it. Well, her staff, anyways.

      After all, Adam Lanza did murder 26 people (really 27 if you count Nancy). Therefore you, a tax paying peon, cannot be trusted with a CCW permit.

      California: low voting and border crossing standards. Result? Feinstein is in power for decades. She might even get voted in after her death.

      Side note: Have you “learned” to deal with failing a smog test even when the “check engine” light is on? Do you appreciate paying the highest gas taxes in the nation?

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The analogy fails, because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil right that is constitutionally protected against any and all infringement – an infringement prohibition against which the several states, including California, are incorporated through the equal protection clause.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      Her response will be: “You don’t need a gun. You should turn it in.” She really could care less how much training you have–“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns.” She said that if she cold ban all guns she would.

      Further, your analogy is inapt. If I drive to California from any other sate on vacation, I do not have to comply with the Cal Car regulations. (In fact, if I move to California from any other state with my vehicle, I don’t have to comply with the state standards either.) California grants reciprocity to the licenses from all other states–and there are no questions asked about the amount of training required to obtain that license. As many or more people are killed in car accidents as all people, including suicides, who die from gun shot wounds, and her are more injuries in car accidents than in shootings (not sure of the numbers, but I think it is on the order of 5x as many). Therefore there is no rational basis to support the perception that licensed CCW carriers should are more dangerous than vehicle drivers. And further, although the data is incomplete, such data as exists supports the proposition that licensed carriers are less likely to engage in illegal “gun violence” or other crimes than even the police, much less the general population. But the game here is to keep people from carrying guns,and he facts are irrelevant.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        NAILED IT.

        At issue is transit through the state. Another state CCW should be honored for a limited time. Same as driver licenses. Once your a resident then reapply for CA driver license as well as CCW.

        National CCW would eliminate the need to reapply.

  23. avatar FelixD says:

    The Senator’s argument is moot. With the Court’s action on homosexual marriage, reciprocity, or the extension of a civil right via the 14th Amendment, already exists. A Federal law that confirms reciprocity would be nice, but isn’t really necessary. But, without such a law, it will take someone to be arrested in order for the application of the court’s ruling to be recognized. The unfortunate aspect is that while affecting the idea of reciprocity it also deflates the value of the 10th Amendment and allows Federalism to creep further into our lives.

    1. avatar Dempsterdumpster says:

      Guns don’t produce smog.

      This, as all gun control positions, is all about the dance between the simpering weak and their power hungry elitist rulers. Codependence of the worst sort, writ large.

      Edit: meant for Dave.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry permits does not violate or even threaten the 10th amendment. The states are incorporated against the 2nd amendment prohibition against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional state authority to infringe upon that right.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        True enough, but off point. This is not about banning the keeping of guns, or even the carry of guns, but the banning of concealed carry and a nearly two hundred year history of case law approving the constitutionality of such laws(on the state level). The only equal protection issue is whether out of sate visitors are treated the same as instate residents with respect to the laws of carrying. If constitutional concealed carry is recognized for residents, then a solid argument can be made that nonresidents must be accorded the same right. (However, the only case directly raising this issue, in the context of a Denver ordinance banning open carry and only allowing residents to obtain CCWs, went down in flames.) If the state (or home rule city) bans all concealed carry, then there is no 14th Amendment equal protection issue.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Au contraire: concealed carry is the only legal means of carry permitted in California; therefore, to deny someone the ability to carry concealed in California is to deny that person any means whatsoever of exercising the right to bear arms.

          See also: Peruta.

      2. avatar FelixD says:

        “Federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry permits does not violate or even threaten the 10th amendment.”

        No one said it did. The comment was directed to how SCOTUS used the 14th to bypass the 10th.

  24. avatar Shire-man says:

    I don’t understand how politicians can get away with sending out their condescending pre-fab form letter responses as they do.
    There must be 50 of them in my inbox. All nearly identical yet in response to different subjects.
    The patronizing affect should have resulted in presentation of torches and pitchforks long long ago.

  25. avatar Paul53 says:

    I thought somebody dropped a house on her. Well, that’s one more line on the to do list.

  26. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Term limits-that’s what I support. See: the next post up-some Jewish folks are more equal than others(unless you can afford bodyguards…)

  27. avatar Lew says:

    I wonder how many arm guards she has when she travels that carry guns

  28. avatar Richard in WA says:

    I never thought I’d say this but what she said almost made sense. At least in terms of states’ rights, the States should have the right to enact local legislation where it does not conflict with Federal legislation.

    Not that I’m a fan. I would like my CPL to have reciprocity. And unfortunately, SCOTUS has a much different view than I on what “shall not be infringed” means.

  29. avatar JohnF says:

    “Thank you (LIE) for contacting me to share your views regarding the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015″ (S. 498). I appreciate the time you took to write (LIE), and I welcome the opportunity to respond (LIE) . . .

    Again, thank you (LIE) for your letter. Knowing your views is important to me (LIE) , and I hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you (LIE).

    Someone actually had to write her to find out what her views were on this? Anyone who knows her name could have told you that and would probably been more accurate about her opinions than she was in her letter. Let’s try the real version:

    “F-you for contacting me to share your Neanderthal views regarding the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015″ (S. 498). I appreciate that you are even able to write, you ignorant SOB, and I welcome the opportunity to explain what an idiot you are . . .

    Again, f-you for your letter. Knowing your views is irrelevant to me, and I hope you blow your head off with you own gun.”

  30. avatar gsnyder says:

    So her solution is to do nothing and allow lawful people to be infringed upon and or end up innocently breaking the law. Dianne Feinstein doesn’t provide solutions, she puts up walls. As far as training, not really needed. Once you understand where the safety is and how to load/unload you are mostly there. Would it be a good idea to fire a few rounds before you buy, yes it would. But how do we make laws which produce responsibility?

  31. avatar Knight1212 says:

    You will receive the same reply, regardless of the issue, from Feinstein, Boxer, and Rep. Huffman.
    Always word for word.

    The only difference is the amount of time to receive the reply.
    Feinstein usually within a week. Huffman two to three weeks.
    Boxer one to two months.

  32. avatar tired says:

    The point missed is that each state treats the rights as if you were writing rules for your house, but I’m not from Ca.
    Example, I can drive a car through California, but that doesn’t mean that I should have to stop at the border and take all the missing pieces of the drivers training course. That would be dumb…….

    If its ok in your state, it should be ok in any state, I didn’t kill a bunch of people in Idaho while carrying, why would I slaughter people in Ca?

    Following the laws for the people who live there is one thing, they are there all the time, for out of state people its different.

    I live in the USA, I should be governed by USA laws only, this state to state, county by county, township by township bull crap just causes innocent people to become criminals by default.
    Drive into Jersey with a gun in your car (NO AMMO) to visit a friends house… FELON!

    blah!

    Here’s my fav,

    Guns on my side in Pa, good little citizen, I walk across the state line, say while hiking…. FELON!

    Instantly you become Americas most wanted death machine bent on mass murder of women and children capable of destroying cities with the blink of an eye, and you MUST be locked away, FAST!!!

    BAH ! I SAY, BAH!

  33. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Federalism” – Good when it makes you keep policies I don’t like to yourself; bad when it prevents me from inflicting my superior wisdom on you.

    This is called principled behavior from our leaders.

  34. avatar Phil LA says:

    Is it just me, or did “Di-Fi” just get hotter in the above picture? I guess it’s something about a carry handle. She’s now a degree above “frigid.”

  35. avatar H says:

    All people need is five minutes of training?
    Guess you haven’t seen the potentially lethal errors people make at the range.
    Just Wednesday a professional full time security guard for a Federal Govt facility, swept a group of people. When corrected he said, “whoa, you all have some discipline!”

    Rights? Yes! Responsibility too!

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      All people need is five minutes of training?

      Yes. Explain the mechanics of the gun, and then recite the four rules. Done.

      Guess you haven’t seen the potentially lethal errors people make at the range.

      Anecdote is not evidence. I can cite the actual statistics if need be. If you want to use mandatory training to prevent more accidental deaths, mandate training for swimming pools, bath tubs, household chemicals, and stairs.

      Just Wednesday a professional full time security guard for a Federal Govt facility, swept a group of people. When corrected he said, “whoa, you all have some discipline!”

      So, please tell me more about the efficacy of mandated, rigorous training.

      You seem to be implying that its inability to eliminate stupid behavior among professionals is more reason to mandate it for non-professionals. In the immortal words of Rachel Jeantel: that’s retarded, sir.

  36. avatar DOnald123 says:

    SO Feinstein supports states’ rights- who knew?

  37. avatar Kyle says:

    Difi is quite famous for her deep commitment to the 2nd amendment.

  38. avatar Roymond says:

    “Jim Bullock says:
    July 3, 2015 at 15:54

    With apologies to The BlogFather…

    I look forward to a day when the gay, Wiccan couple who run a chapel can argue caliber in a Starbucks with the hetero, Christian couple they refused to marry, while the only people who get P O-ed overhearing all that are the cross-fitting Vegans who hate everybody.

    Senator Feinstein is not bringing us closer to this day.”

    +10^10

  39. avatar MeRp says:

    Thanks for this; I hadn’t even realized there was a bill proposed; I wrote my two senators and await their reply of “screw you, we hate guns and anyone who owns them, even from our own state.”

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