Senator Dianne Feinstein: Californians Don’t Want Concealed Carry

Dianne Feinstein on NBC's Meet The Press (courtesy youtube.com)

In the video below, California Senator Dianne Feinstein shared sixteen minutes of her time with CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. We’ve already covered the money shot: the Senator’s admission that no gun control laws would have stopped Las Vegas spree killer Stephen Paddock. In today’s episode of Who Wants to Be A Gun Grabber, Senator Feinstein reveals that Golden State residents don’t want national reciprocity. Heck, they don’t even want concealed carry . . .

My opinion of that bill is terrible. We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon? Around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation, Californians do not want concealed carry.

Huh. Ms. Feinstein somehow forgets to mention that she had a California concealed carry permit.

Two years ago, California had 70,593 concealed carry permit holders. How many more would have a permit (an unconstitutional requirement in and of itself) if the state was “shall issue”? Hopefully, we’ll find out one day.

Meanwhile, someone should tell Ms. Feinstein that constitutionally protected rights aren’t subject to the democratic process. (How many southerners supported emancipation back in the day?)

Then again, at 7:28 into the clip, Ms. Feinstein rejects the fact that bearing a concealed firearm without a government-issued permission slip is a protected civil right.

I don’t believe [the right to keep and bear arms] is protected by the Constitution. To conceal it, without a permit . . . I am saying that the state I represent would not want any part of [national reciprocity], nor should any American. You just make the situation worse. You let somebody with a weapon who may do you harm get close to you. Why would you want that?

It takes a great deal of practice to pack so much fail in such a small space. Unlike California’s gun control legislation, which is so much fail over such a huge area.

comments

  1. avatar cmac890 says:

    Yeah, well, thankfully we’re not all Californian.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      well…

      My opinion of that bill is terrible. We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon? Around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation, Californians do not want concealed carry.

      Even in California, plenty of Californians want concealed carry. It isn’t that “Californians don’t want concealed carry” – it’s that the majority in California doesn’t want the minority to have the freedom to have concealed carry. I.E. they are intolerant bigots. Feinstein just isn’t being accurate with her words or the situation. Of the 40 million in California, 11 million of them are republicans, and i’m sure some of them would want concealed carry.

      1. avatar Eddie Newcastle says:

        You could not pay me to be a CA resident. Too many woo-woos there, including Governor Jerry Brown.

  2. avatar Pg2 says:

    She represents a small fraction of the 40 million Californians she pretends to represent.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Unfortunately, she and Kamala “represents” all of California in the Senate, even if she doesn’t represent all Californians’ interests. Congratulations.

    2. avatar Ogre says:

      The coastal elite fraction.

    3. avatar Removed_californian says:

      I am californian.
      Want a ccw.
      Doesn’t want to have to wait a year to even be told I can apply for one.

      She does not represent me.

      FOAD Feinstein.

    4. avatar MeRp says:

      The west coast Senators (and Governors) are the perfect example of why the electoral college is entirely necessary. They do not feel even the slightest duty to represent the whole state or curry support statewide; they pander to and direct their campaigns towards the large population centers only; they know they can safely ignore the conservative minorities in each state because they don’t need to generate widespread support, only a 50% + 1 majority in the popular vote.
      Reps are a bit different because they have separate districts, so they pander to their own district; even there, though, in many cases there is a larger population center, then a bunch of area.

      It seems like, rather than moving towards eliminating the electoral system for President, maybe we should move towards implementing it at all levels.

    5. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

      She’s a DAMN LIAR. Simple as that.

    6. avatar willford says:

      Wonder If this old windbag TW?T has given hers up?

  3. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Come on CALIFORNIA!!! RECALL THIS GLOBALIST CAREER POLITICIAN!!!

    1. avatar DrewN says:

      She won’t leave office until they carry her out. She’ll be in her early 90’s by the end of her next term (no, there’s zero chance she loses this time round, even though she will be running against another Democrat), time will catch up with her eventually. Unfortunately, whoever succeeds her will likely be even more antigun, with the added bonus of being a far less capable politician. California is fucked for the forseeable future. Whoever thought letting the 2 highest vote getters in the primaries run in the election even if they are both dems was a special kind of asshole.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        It was a democrat who came up with the idea. They didn’t like the fact Repubs would be put on the ticket at all. They dolled it up as a proposition with fancy words but really is was about limiting Repubs at the ballot box….and the people approved it.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          The referendum system of government continually proves the reason why pure democracies ALWAYS fail.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Wait, what? Republicans cannot even run for office in California because they did not get enough votes in a primary election? How in the Hell is that legal?

          My closing comment: one-party government is the hallmark of communism.

          But this should not come as any surprise. Democrats oppose all rights for their political enemies — even their right to vote and have a representative government.

        3. avatar ST says:

          It was a Republican who came with this idea, his name is Abel Maldonado, a former Lt. Gov. during Schwarzenegger’s term. He proposed Prop 14 and people voted “yes”.

          Basically, Republicans shot themselves in the foot.

    2. avatar kevin says:

      We would love to get rid of Feinstein but Los Angeles and San Francisco won’t let us. You got to remember that the entire state of California is ruled by those two area’s. We finally got rid of Boxer and she was replaced by Kamala Harris who is twice as bad as Boxer was and even more of a self righteous know it all politician, and that is the choices that we had….one democrat or another democrat, no other party to vote for Boxer’s senate seat.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        The San Diego area and the Silicon Valley(San Jose area) also have many anti gun types. Another problem is that Ca has many foriegn born who grew up in countries that were ruled by people with guns and anyone who got in an arguement with them lost – so of course they are anti gun. Sadly, our new citizens are not taught about the BOR anymore.

        1. avatar GunDoc says:

          Again.

          Los Angeles and San Francisco need to be expelled as City States. 2 electoral votes each, and can try to buy water from whomever will sell it to them.

  4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    …And while your at it…While shes employed by We the People…Then she can lose her armed security, turn in her firearms , and her permit….If you DON’T need, she DOESN’T need it!!!

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      She let her permit expire. Story at the link above.

      1. avatar Jared says:

        She let her CA permit expire because she obtained Deputy U.S. Marshal creds so she could carry everywhere.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          False. The Marshall’s Office does not issue CCWs to anyone but Marshalls, and to be a Marshall, you have to be POST qualified, among other things. This was a hot rumor four or five years ago, but it is false. Second, not even senators or representatives are permitted to carry at the Capitol. Congress banned weapons at the Capitol more than a century and a half ago (too many fights in the cloak room). All firearms must, by rule, be in the possession of a federal or local law enforcement officer. Which, by the way, was the case when she had a whole bunch of “assault weapons” brought in for one of her gun control speeches, but blocked Cruz from doing the same when he presented his counter argument. He had to use pictures instead.

          Besides which, she has around the clock armed security. She does not need a CCW.

        2. avatar Jared says:

          No Mark, it’s true. It’s not a “ccw”, it’s called being a Deputy U.S. Marshal which can and has been done. Anyone can be made a special Deputy. For a handful of congress/senate members for decades. They were pissed when they could no longer fly armed.

      2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Even if you trust her to answer that honestly, and I don’t, she has armed security much more competent with guns than she ever was.

        How does she reconcile her views on reciprocity with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? If she is for continuing to ignore it, perhaps drivers licenses from California don’t need to be recognized by say Georgia, or Texas.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Easy: State’s rights. There is technically no federal national reciprocity for driver’s licenses; instead, the states were forced to grant reciprocity as a condition to receiving federal highway funds. But still, it is reciprocity extended by state law, not federal law.

          On the other hand, the state’s rights argument loses a certain amount of steam after the Second Amendment was extended to the states by McDonald v. Chicago, but the effect has not been demonstrated in the “ban” states since the Supreme Court has refused to grant certiorari in a “bear” case.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          This is one place where the state’s rights argument doesn’t hold any water. If the states don’t do it themselves, the feds have constitutional authority to do it to/for them, via the full faith and credit clause.

          National reciprocity for CCW permits should absolutely be a thing. If you qualify for one in your state, it should be good in every state, exactly like driver’s licenses and marriages.

  5. avatar Felix says:

    If Californians don’t want CCW, then why do you have to make it illegal?

  6. avatar Gman says:

    You let somebody with a weapon who may do you harm get close to you.

    I’m not sure which is worse, that she is stupid enough to believe anyone has any control over who has a weapon and how close they get to you or that those of us who carry concealed wish to do harm to others in the first place.

  7. avatar Everyoneinmyheadagreeswithme says:

    How did she get a CCP? She would not ever pass a legitimate background check. When was she first diagnosed as being bipolar, with sociopathic tendencies?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      When she was elected to Congress.

  8. avatar paul says:

    No surprises here. Indeed, I’m surprised to find this vid here. Pelosi is anti gun; you might as well print a column saying the sun will rise tomorrow.

    If nothing else, this vid is simply another verification of my, and hopefully your, policy: NOT ONE INCH. NOT ONE STEP BACK. If “people” like Pelosi, Schumer et al want to take our rights, they will need to take them.

  9. avatar dragos111 says:

    I agree with her. “Her opinion of that bill is terrible.”

    You gotta love it when because of poorly worded phrases they tell what they really mean, not what they want you to hear.

  10. avatar Gman says:

    I don’t believe [the right to keep and bear arms] is protected by the Constitution.

    Is that statement not sufficient evidence that she lied when she swore oath to support and defend the Constitution?

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Exactly. In a country of laws, this would be enough to remove her from the office she owns through special interests.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Another 6 years of this old biddie in the Senate again??? I know this is loaded question. But why??? Time to retire the old battle axe already. Maybe then Kalifornia might become a part of the USA again.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Seven. The next election is a year away.

  12. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    “Nana, what did you do in the firearms civil rights movement?”

    “Well, sweetie, I worked tirelessly to deny the People their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I even got up on national television and denied that such a right even exists, despite the plain text of the Constitution itself and multiple Supreme Court rulings.”

    “That sounds dangerous, Nana.”

    “It’s OK, sweetie, I have a Willie Wonka golden concealed carry permit all my own!”

    Confiscation now. Confiscation tomorrow. Confiscation forever!

  13. avatar Bernard says:

    California boy here. No, what she is saying isn’t true. I have a Nevada and Utah CCW permit. I can conceal carry in 33 states, but oh no, not LA county.
    I just live quietly behind enemy lines.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      KKKommifornia state law says those permits are valid state wide. L.A. County has no statutory authority whatsoever in the matter. No locality does, either.

  14. avatar Noishkel says:

    Yeah I bet she does think that. And just like any other neo-liberal coastal elite scum bag they also believe that the entire nation should act and think just like the she does.

  15. avatar TXGunGal says:

    AND the old bat is going to run for reelection 😳
    My sympathy to her district. Note to California, since you have screwed up your state please don’t move to Texas. Moved to Dallas in 1969 when it was still a small town attitude in a big city. Live in San Marcos TX now and working on moving back to Fredericksburg TX inherited rural area family property building a house on 5 acres.

  16. avatar FedUp says:

    “Heck, they don’t even want concealed carry”

    …unless they’re named Feinstein or Boxer, then they insist on being given the permits that they want to deny everyone else.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    She’s probably correct about what most Californians want. Especially the one’s from San Francisco, Los Angeles and Mexico.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    Californians Don’t Want to be represented by a Sith Lord.

    Fic’d it for ya.

  19. avatar NWBR says:

    In the future, could you forego using the term “money shot” in discussing Senator Feinstein. It’s not a pretty image.

  20. avatar fteter says:

    Sen. Feinstein herself has a concealed carry permit. As do 316 Superior and Municipal Court judges in the State of California. And it’s estimated that there are about 94,000 active concealed carry permits in California as of July, 2017 (Calgun.net estimate, found athttp://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1236204). Plus all of the pending applications in the state (which likely equals or exceeds the number of active permits, if statistical trends in California through 2017 continue to hold true). But, yeah, nobody in California is interested in a permit.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      She’s well known to say anything! She likes to talk about assault weapons and the damage they do and that she has seen first hand what they do as she is a witness and references the SF murder of the SF Mayor. Well she’s lying about that murder at CIty Hall in San Francisco.
      That murder was committed with a .38 revolver, but she leads us to think otherwise.
      Our country doesn’t need elderly female leaders.

    2. avatar Ryan says:

      Exactly. There are plenty of people who want a permit, as is shown every time a county decides to drop or loosen the “good cause” requirement. For example, it took me 10 months to get a CC permit in Ventura County because of the backlog, and we are not allowed to add additional firearms to our permits in between renewals because of the backlog.

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    They don’t want everyone to conceal carry because it would allow people to carry while at the grocery store, the movie theater, the restaurant, etc, without getting trespassed. If you open carry you will be forced to leave every establishment and possibly banned from every premises they own regardless of you not carrying. You won’t be able to live a normal life if you carry as a non government worker.

    1. avatar Behind the lines in the PRK says:

      There is no open carry in California. Those of us in L.A. County would never bother to attempt to get a CC permit. Only judges and politicians are allowed permits.

  22. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Damn this hack is full of RAT poo! This Legal American Citizen, trapped in the commie kalifornia hell hole, wants his CCW. So DiFi, go F yourself for lying.

  23. avatar Adam says:

    To be fair, she is probably correct. If a vote was taken, a majority of CA residents would abolish the second amendment completely. That being said, rights aren’t up for a vote. Alabama can’t vote to end gay marriage (right to contract) and CA can’t vote to end gun rights.

    If CA wants to be released from the US Constitution they need to declare independence from it. As an American, I will support that as I support the right of any group of people to peacefully leave an association/contract that they in no way initially agreed to. And no, being born in some place does not count as consent to a contract written and signed 200 years ago before the birth of said individuals.

  24. avatar Jack Moore says:

    Seceed already you bunch of commies

  25. avatar JDH says:

    She means the Democrat Elites don’t want concealed carry.

  26. avatar Kyle says:

    Lord knows our criminals REALLY don’t want concealed carry

  27. avatar rights says:

    First she is wrong, but even if she was right… Inalienable Rights are not subject to a popular vote. Go home witch!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      DiFi does not have a CCW. Just look at the issuance numbers for San Francisco County (where she “lives” and which would be the county of issuance). Moreover, that permit would do her absolutely no good in D.C., where she spends most of her time. With armed security, a CCW is useless for her and not worth the effort to renew.

  28. avatar stateisevil says:

    So weird. My cousin spent months and hundreds of dollars to get his carry permit in California

  29. avatar Mark N. says:

    I can say with absolute confidence that the sheriffs, police chiefs, and mayors of the Los Angeles Basin, San Diego County, San Francisco and the Bay Area are absolutely opposed to a relaxed CCW issuance policy. Each and everyone will state that “more guns means more crime,” and that more guns on the street is a horrible idea. But it is also true that if these areas went “shall issue,” the line would be months long (which is what happened when gore issued “conditional” permits when the original Ninth circuit panel decision held that “self-defense” is “good cause.” You don’t think that Difi talks to the People, do you? Not! As anyone who has written to her can testify, she is not at all interested in hearing any opposition to her beliefs.

  30. avatar David J. says:

    Typical Liberal/Progressive B.S. They get their playbook straight from Hitler himself. Hitler said lie and lie big until the people accept that lie as the truth! Then government controls everything and can do as it pleases with those same people! These gun grabbers do nothing but lie and lie big. True to form, more and more halfwits are believing their lies. I live my life hoping that I can serve as a trigger to these snowflakes because I like watching them meltdown when things do not compute to their puny little minds.

  31. avatar The Exception says:

    Cops are human. Not all of them are williing to risk their lives to protect others. We are thankfull for those that have brass cajones and really care. But, they can’t always be there as ” timely” as you would need them to be. Therefore, you must be prepared to protect youself, your loved ones and others. Many cops will agree that being prepared may include being armed, especially if you live in a rural area where “timeliness” is not the norm.

    There are exceptions to most things. Therefore, as the saying goes, “better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6”. I choose to be prepared and armed and this is my exception to California’s gun laws. It’s called survival. I understand Ms. Feinstein was well aware of this exception when she CHOSE to carry a concealed firearm even though she is well off financially and can afford armed bodyguards to be very nearby. She still felt insecure and armed herself. How quickly some people will choose to forget.

  32. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    Well, why won’t that old hag just die.

    Preferably by cancer, of the AIDS, of the herpes of the eye.

  33. avatar David says:

    I used to work in the film industry in Los Angeles. Having a small gun in your tool belt was considered necessary. I don’t know anyone who didn’t carry. But that was Hollywood and they are elitist scum that think rules only apply to everyone else (Harvey Weinstein case in point).
    I now live in another state and have a CCW permit. I never leave home without it. I still know many people in Ca that are law abiding citizens that want a CCW permit. Some have been trying legally to get one for years. Others just carry anyway.

  34. avatar Joe R. says:

    Californians don’t want their state to go off the rails like France today (and Spain last week). Guns would ensure that Feinstein and her backers would be hunted like wild pigs, so she REALLY needs to make sure they get your guns before her batch of communism goes tits-up out there in CA-ca land.

    They “can’t protect you unless and until you give up the means to protect yourself”. So only the first part of their statement is true.

    P.S. – watch for new World War in ~ 1 year 7 mos., and keep your guns and ammo for then.

  35. avatar Nick in CA says:

    This Californian wants Concealed Carry! I remain in CA to fight, however hopeless. (Someday I might move but that is for the future.) I am also awaiting the day that a Tornado Drops A House on Senators Feinstein & Harris. I will then toast the occasion with champagne at a gathering of the Lollipop Guild!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Move out to the valley, to Sacramento, or points north of there, as all are pretty much shall issue (with the exception of Yuba County).

  36. avatar joe3 says:

    Let us know when her security stops carrying.

  37. avatar jwm says:

    You guys notice she’s a US senator, not a CA rep. And she included all Americans in her statement.

    This ain’t just a CA problem.

  38. avatar Lhstr says:

    Now let me understand this. California is now a santuary state, right. Due to that they don’t want to obey Federal laws. If so why don’t they get the hell out of Washington DC. They don’t want to live by laws why do they have a right to make laws??? Hmmm.

  39. avatar cpc says:

    Ever since Harvey got wasted in SF she “Milk’s” it for all it’s worth. She makes my teeth hurt !

  40. avatar freakinpeanuts says:

    WOAH!!!! Didn’t Diane Feinstein want concealed carry?

    yeah, yeah she did.
    “I thought if they were going to take me out, I wanted to take a few of them with me,” she told the audience with a laugh.”

    interesting……………………..

  41. avatar James Liu says:

    Feinstein is a complete hypocrite. She feels, or felt, the need to carry. So, she must understand the need to feel secure and safe. Yet she does not want others to carry?? Does she believe she is superior to us? And she’s totally wrong. California gun sales have highly increased. I think that says it all. If she no longer has a CCW it’s because she has a security detail. We average people don’t.

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