Kamala Answers Questions About Firearm Ownership

0
656

Oh, the irony is rich with this one. Vice President Kamala Harris sat down for a cozy interview on 60 Minutes and dropped a little tidbit that’s sure to raise a few eyebrows: she owns a Glock pistol. Yes, the same Kamala Harris who’s made a political career out of pushing for gun control measures that would severely restrict—if not outright ban—the very firearm she says she has. This is a woman who supported Proposition H, a sweeping handgun ban in San Francisco back in 2005, and continues to back measures that would place heavy restrictions on “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons.” Yet, she’s got her own Glock tucked away at home.

Now, let’s talk about those high-capacity magazines. If Harris’s Glock is anything like the standard models, it could hold well over the 10 rounds that California allows, which means her pistol might not even pass muster under the state’s own restrictions. That’s right—owning a standard-issue magazine could technically land her in hot water, with a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in prison according to the California Penal Code. How’s that for a twist? But, of course, California’s complicated gun laws don’t seem to apply to politicians who can write the rules for everyone else.

Let’s not forget, Harris was all in for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and has advocated for its reinstatement in her 2024 campaign. That’s the same ban that would make many Glock pistols illegal today just for having magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Harris cites her time as a prosecutor as justification for owning her Glock, hinting that she’s more responsible or more in need of protection than the average citizen. The model most commonly issued for law enforcement is the Glock 22, which holds 15 rounds at standard capacity. But what makes her need for self-defense any more legitimate than a law-abiding citizen’s?

In California, thanks to the Unsafe Handguns Act (UHA) passed in 2001, a handgun has to be on a list of “certified for sale” models to be considered safe. Funny thing—no Glock model made in the U.S. has been approved for sale under the UHA. As Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation pointed out, Harris’s Glock ownership raises a few questions. She might still have an exemption as a former law enforcement officer, but if the Glock is so “unsafe” for the average Californian, why is it suddenly OK for her to own one?

But wait, it gets better. Harris insists in her 2024 campaign that she’s “not taking anyone’s guns away.” Sure, except she was all about a mandatory gun buyback for “assault weapons” during her failed 2019 presidential run. That plan was about as effective in winning over voters as it would be in practice—experts called it both unworkable and unconstitutional. Amy Swearer from the Heritage Foundation summed it up: if the Supreme Court ever reviewed a ban like the one Harris supports, it would likely declare it unconstitutional in a heartbeat.

So, here we have Harris trying to thread the needle—claiming to support gun rights while backing restrictions that would make most handguns, including her own, illegal for the average American. It’s a classic example of “rules for thee, but not for me,” and it’s not going to sit well with voters who believe the Second Amendment actually means something. And as for that trusty old talking point that she’s “not coming for your guns”? Well, her record suggests otherwise. So, while Harris clings to her Glock, she’s busy crafting policies that would leave the rest of us defenseless. Nothing like a little hypocrisy to kick off the campaign season, right?