Kamala Harris, Glock Owner
The veep seems to think that her claims to owning a handgun disprove her goal of gun control and confiscation.
Whenever a Democrat says, “I support the Second Amendment” or “I own a gun,” you know a “but” is coming.
That was no different for Kamala Harris when she revealed in her lone debate with Donald Trump that “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.” She didn’t use the word “but,” but her next sentence was just that: “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”
Trump had accused her twice earlier in the debate of having “a plan to confiscate everybody’s gun.” Memo to Harris’s army of “fact-checkers”: That was hyperbole, but not that far off from the literal truth, which I’ll get to momentarily.
In any case, Harris owning a gun doesn’t disprove the confiscation claim. After all, the government agents who would be tasked with “taking anybody’s guns away” don’t show up unarmed, knock, and ask nicely. They will be bearing firearms themselves, almost surely vastly outgunning any private citizen in his home.
Remember, Joe “Double-Barrel Shotgun” Biden routinely threatens the American people with superior firepower, but I digress.
Harris, who heads Biden’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, has reiterated a few times since the debate that she’s a gun owner, including telling Oprah Winfrey that anyone breaking into her house is “getting shot.” In her Sunday interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” she went further, claiming, “I have a Glock, and, um, I’ve had it for quite some time. Look, my background is in law enforcement, so there ya go.” Asked whether she’d fired it, she responded with a nervous giggle, “Yes, of course I have. At a shooting range.”
Well then.
What model Glock? Most Glocks are considered by California to be “unsafe handguns” and cannot be sold there. Many Glocks also have standard ammunition capacity that exceeds California’s draconian 10-round limit. Does hers exceed that limit or otherwise run afoul of state law? Is it registered as California and DC laws require? She didn’t say, and CBS’s Bill Whitaker didn’t ask.
Notice in her X post of the video clip that whatever staffer made that post apparently doesn’t even know that Glock is a brand and should be capitalized.
My background is in law enforcement. Yes, I own a glock.pic.twitter.com/gTbjrEMCPA
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 8, 2024
National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke emphasizes the important point here: hypocrisy. “From her previous statements, we know that it’s a Glock handgun, and from her previous actions, we therefore know that it’s exactly the sort of firearm that, at two points in her career, she’s tried to prevent her fellow citizens from owning.”
That’s right. When Harris was San Francisco’s district attorney, she backed Proposition H, which would have banned buying, selling, or possessing handguns in the city. Fortunately, it was struck down as unconstitutional in court, but there’s no question Harris would enact it nationwide if she could. Indeed, undeterred, she backed the gun banners in Washington, DC, by signing an amicus brief in DC v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court struck down the District’s handgun ban as unconstitutional.
“As California attorney general,” notes The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd, Harris “attempted to enforce experimental microstamping of firing pins as a requirement for any sellable guns.” For a time, that made most firearms manufactured after 2013 illegal for sale in California.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration was before the Supreme Court just yesterday arguing against so-called “ghost guns.” The Team Biden-Harris overall argument is essentially this: You might be able to keep (in a locked box) and bear (in extremely limited contexts) arms (that aren’t especially scary looking), but you can’t make your own.
Would an interviewer somewhere ask Harris why it’s okay for her to own a Glock and to shoot an intruder while her fellow citizens in the only two places she’s lived in the last 20 years should not be able to own a firearm?
Maybe that interviewer should also ask Harris about what she said regarding the legislation she — then San Francisco DA — and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom passed: “We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”
Speaking of which, given the red-flag allegations that Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, has been a philanderer and domestic abuser, maybe someone should check on their home to ensure that Kamala’s Glock is being handled safely and responsibly.
Harris’s unchanged “values” demand no less.
