When it comes to most mainstream media journalists, you can’t blame them for not knowing about firearms. They aren’t – for the most part – “gun people.”

On 60 Minutes, the CBS news program, Bill Whitaker demonstrated the latest frustrating example. He at least asked Vice President Kamala Harris what type of firearm she owned. It was a new and quickly forgotten revelation when she first revealed she was a gun owner in 2019, but has resurfaced recently after she repeated it during the ABC News presidential debate and then told Oprah Winfrey that she’d shoot an intruder if one were to ever break into her home.

The vice president said she owned a Glock and that, yes, she’d been to a shooting range. However, that was the extent of it – Whitaker moved along.

Her answer, though, opens up more questions that are frankly problematic for Vice President Harris and demonstrate again her hypocrisy of targeting law-abiding firearm ownership while ignoring violent criminals.

The vice president should answer a few more questions. Keep in mind, the vice president is a California resident, a state with arguably the strictest gun control laws in the country.

From all appearances, the vice president has a serious case of “Gun control for thee. Not for me.”

Relevant Timeline

In 2019, the vice president – then a U.S. Senator from California running for president herself – told media she owned a handgun and an aide later confirmed that “the handgun was purchased years ago.” The aide also stated the vice president kept the firearm locked up in her Los Angeles home. There’s no pinpoint to that timeframe and the vice president hasn’t provided any additional details. It could mean she purchased her firearm in 2015 or 2000. Stating the firearm was “purchased,” however, does confirm it was not given to her or handed down from family.

The vice president’s professional career also matters to her ability to own a Glock specifically. Harris began her legal career in California in the late 1990s and early 2000s. She started in Alameda County’s district attorney’s office. Next, she was recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and later to the Office of the City Attorney of San Francisco. She was then elected District Attorney for San Francisco in 2003, followed by a jump up to California Attorney General in 2010 and winning reelection in 2014.

What’s notable here is that California’s strict handgun possession and purchasing law, the Unsafe Handguns Act (UHA), was enacted in 2001. Glock handguns have largely been prohibited for purchase by the Average Joe in California. Glock Generation 1, 2, 4 and 5, in addition to U.S.-made Glock handguns are all currently prohibited for sale to the general public by California’s restrictions. Only Austrian-made Glock Generation 3 handgun models, which were grandfathered, are currently approved per the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). 

It is possible Vice President Kamala Harris purchased her Glock before 2001. If you believe that – I have a Golden Gate Bridge to sell you.

What is most likely – if it is in fact true that the vice president purchased at some point in the past 10 or so years and owns a Glock – is that she used the UHA carveout exemption for law enforcement, which included certain employees in the district attorney’s office or later when she was elected as attorney general.

The law states:

“This section shall not apply to any of the following:… (4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to … any district attorney’s office … for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies.”

The facts are simple. If the vice president does indeed own a GLOCK handgun in California for purposes of self-defense, she possesses it under a gun control carveout that is not available to millions of law-abiding Californians. By the way – the vice president, as leader of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, is accused of colluding with gun control groups and the City of Chicago to sue GLOCK over allegations that they make unsafe firearms.

But Wait…There’s More

Not only would Vice President Kamala Harris’s GLOCK ownership be a blatant case of “gun control for thee, not for me,” she went even further to try to prohibit private handgun ownership in California.

Not long after the UHA was enacted in California, then-San Fransisco District Attorney Harris forcefully supported Proposition H, a 2005 ballot measure that banned San Francisco residents outright from buying, selling or even possessing handguns. Once again, as with the UHA, Prop. H included exception carveouts for active-duty law enforcement, military and certain licensed security guards. Prop. H was later struck down, but that didn’t stop Harris from supporting more gun control extremes.

At a 2007 press conference, while still serving as San Fransisco District Attorney, Harris told legal gun owners that authorities could “walk into their homes” to inspect whether they were storing their firearms properly under a new proposal she helped draft.

“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,” she said at the time.

Supreme Attempts to Ban

It becomes even more hypocritical for the vice president to say she owns a handgun not available to the California public, given her tenure as a law enforcement official. In 2008, then-DA Harris signed on to a District Attorneys’ friend-of-the-court brief, or amicus brief, in D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court’s leading Second Amendment case. Heller, of course, was a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s, ban on handgun possession.

That means the vice president’s opinion was that not only could California ban handgun sales and possession, but that the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude total bans on handgun possession. In fact, her brief argues the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t an individual right at all, but that “the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms.”

There are almost too many levels of hypocrisy to count regarding the revelation Vice President Kamala Harris owns a Glock handgun stored in her private home back in California. There are almost too many instances to recount regarding her current gun control positions that deny Americans self-defense even as she enjoys around-the-clock armed security.

The vice president is attempting to score political points in the last few weeks before Election Day and trying her best to persuade gun owners she’s one of them. The problem is, she’s the living encapsulation of gun control’s fundamental hypocrisy: Gun control for thee, not for me.

23 COMMENTS

  1. “colluding with gun control groups and the City of Chicago to sue GLOCK“

    There’s no problem with the Fed and the state discussing potential lawsuits, federal and state agencies often collaborate to ensure uniformity of efforts.

    Hey, Donald Trump has been colluding with the Heritage foundation to install himself as a fascist dictator, that’s the real problem with project 2025.

    • Trump has specifically disavowed Project 2025 multiple times. He has never even read it, and neither have you, or any of the other ignorant fearmongers running around propagating this lie. That means you’re spreading disinformation.

      Miner, the people you want to give power to have been constantly telling us that you have no right to spread disinformation. They want to use the power of the state to come in behind you and erase your speech, and even hold you accountable for your misdeeds. How do you feel about not having the freedom to say what you want to say?

      • “Trump has specifically disavowed Project 2025 multiple times“

        Yes, that has been his claim recently.
        He also claimed he was introducing a healthcare plan better than Obamacare in two weeks… Nine years ago.

        How about some facts:

        “What We Know About Trump’s Link To Project 2025—As Author Claims Ex-President ‘Blessed It’ In Secret Recording
        Alison Durkee
        Forbes Staff
        Alison is a senior news reporter covering US politics and legal news.
        Aug 15, 2024,12:34pm EDT
        TOPLINE One of the authors of Project 2025 claimed former President Donald Trump has “blessed” the project and is “very supportive of what we do,” according to a secret recording released Thursday—the latest report tying Trump to Project 2025 even as the ex-president has publicly disavowed it.
        Donald Trump Heritage Foundation
        President Donald Trump speaks at the Heritage [+]
        Foundation’s annual President’s Club meeting on Oct. 17, 2017 in Washington.

        Project 2025 is a multi-pronged effort spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, with help from other conservative organizations, aimed at preparing for the next conservative administration—namely a second Trump administration—which has primarily garnered criticism for its 900-page policy blueprint proposing a total overhaul of the executive branch, which was first released last year.

        Trump decried Project 2025 on Truth Social in July, saying he has “nothing to do with them” and calling some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” and his campaign advisor Chris LaCivita has also slammed the group and called the operation “a pain in the ass” to the Trump campaign—even as ties have emerged between the ex-president, his running mate Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, and the Heritage Foundation.

        Russell Vought: The left-wing Centre for Climate Reporting published secret footage Thursday of two people posing as donors and speaking with Vought—a former Trump administration staffer who runs a right-wing group and authored a chapter of Project 2025—who said he’s “not worried” about Trump distancing himself from Project 2025, claiming the ex-president “blessed” the project and “is very supportive of what we do.”

        Kevin Roberts: Trump flew on a private jet with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts in 2022, the Washington Post reported, before speaking at a Heritage Foundation event, and he also praised Roberts in a February speech as “doing an unbelievable job.”

        Public Comments: Trump publicly cheered the Heritage Foundation’s policy work in the past, saying in 2022—before Project 2025’s agenda was released—that the organization was “going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate.”

        Project 2025 Briefing: Roberts told the Post in April he had briefed Trump on Project 2025, saying he “personally [has] talked to President Trump about Project 2025 … because my role in the project has been to make sure that all of the candidates who have responded to our offer for a briefing on Project 2025 get one from me.”

        JD Vance: Roberts has even closer ties to Vance, with the Heritage leader telling Politico in March the senator was “absolutely going to be one of the leaders—if not the leader—of our movement” and saying after Vance was named as Trump’s running mate that the Heritage Foundation had been privately “really rooting” for him to be the pick.

        Kevin Roberts’ Book: Vance also wrote the foreword to Roberts’ forthcoming book outlining “a peaceful ‘Second American Revolution’” for conservative voters, in which Vance reportedly quotes Roberts as saying, “It’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets” and praises the Heritage Foundation as “the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump.”

        Project 2025 Authors: More than 140 former members of the Trump administration are involved with Project 2025, according to CNN, including six of his former Cabinet secretaries—and several people authored chapters whom the Post reports Trump has suggested could be in his second administration, including former advisor Peter Navarro, former Housing Secretary Ben Carson and former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.“

        • That’s your conspiracy theory.

          How about the one where a vegetable, joe biden, was installed in the oval office? Whoever is actually running the country was never voted on.

        • And yet none of your copy paste word salad proves that Trump is for following the Project 2025 blueprint, not that it even matters. He has not and will not read the 900 page playbook, just like you have not and will not read it. He has said he likes some of it, and some of it he doesn’t like. Of course he’s going to try to maintain good relations with influential conservatives. Trump already had his policy agenda set before Project 2025 came out. This Project 2025 propaganda is nothing more than a silly, fearmongering boogeyman for the typically ignorant Democrat voter. It’s akin to the Democrat lies on abortion, among many other lies.

          Of course high level conservative think tanks have interactions with high level conservative politicians. You don’t understand how think tanks work, just like you don’t understand anything. They’re like the intellectual version of lobbyists. They write up policy positions to push on the public and politicians. The Heritage Foundation does a “Project 2025” playbook every single time there’s a change election. The same playbook would exist even if Trump wasn’t running. Furthermore, the main author of the Project even left the Heritage Foundation after the backlash.

    • You’re the guy who told us that it was perfectly legal for Hillary Clinton to strike out or eliminate the classification markings on classified government documents, make copies and then store them on privately owned servers. Your credibility was gone years ago.

      • “Hillary Clinton to strike out or eliminate the classification markings on classified government document“

        Number one, I’ve never made that claim.

        Number two, it’s time for you to back up your claim with fax, what evidence do you have to show that “Hillary Clinton ever strike out or illuminate classification markings on classified government documents”.

        Specifically, what documents are you claiming she struck out or eliminated classification markings on?

  2. “District Attorney Harris forcefully supported Proposition H“

    No crime there, in America we have the right to support whatever legislation we feel is appropriate.

    I agree, Harris is wrong on that issue, but she’s right on so many more and that’s why the smart people are voting for Harris/Walz.

    • I hope Trump wins and turns the whole government upside friggin down and shakes out all the nutbags. If thats “proposition 2025” or whatever else you goobers wanna call it, well I’m all for it.

    • “right on so many more [issues]”

      I’d sincerely like to know which issues you think she’s right on. I try to understand the other side. I’ve talked to Democrat voters. This is my understanding. Please let me know if I’ve missed something.

      Reasons to vote for Harris:

      1. Orange Man Bad (includes protecting democracy)
      2. She’s a Democrat
      3. Federally mandated unlimited abortion (we already have state-allowed abortion)
      4. Free money
      5. Govt subsidies for solar/wind/EV and limits on traditional energy (making it more expensive) to combat climate change.

    • You’re the guy who told us that it was perfectly legal for Hillary Clinton to strike out or eliminate the classification markings on classified government documents, make copies and then store them on privately owned servers. Your credibility was gone years ago.

      • “Hillary Clinton to strike out or eliminate the classification markings on classified government document“

        Number one, I’ve never made that claim.

        Number two, it’s time for you to back up your claim with fax, what evidence do you have to show that “Hillary Clinton ever strike out or illuminate classification markings on classified government documents”.

        Specifically, what documents are you claiming she struck out or eliminated classification markings on?

  3. Did Kamaltoe call Willy’s winky a glock? Would that make her a “glock sucker”?!? Inquiring minds wanna know🙄😎Seriously gunz for thee & none for we.

  4. TTAG, can you guys do something about that Miner49er troll? He started the comments off topic with TDS and is continuing it, maybe remove his posts so the rest of us can discuss the article topic or information relevant to TTAG and not have to scroll through his mental illness expression of TDS crap that is neither on topic for the article or TTAG.

    • He is the definition of a troll. If we said breathing oxygen is a good idea he’d soon be on here telling us what all is wrong with it, and that we just believe breathing is good because Trump told us that was the case.

    • miner49er is one of our greatest allies. He’s just too stupid to realize it. He’s adding numbers to a pro gun site.

      I use his comments to help convince others that the fascist left are a true threat to democracy. He is priceless to our side.

      When dacian quit commenting I had a moment of panic. But miner dutifully stepped up and filled the void. He is so self unaware as to be a parody.

      If miner is truly a product of our modern education system then he is proof that it needs to be burnt down and started anew.

  5. Hey, Fidel and Raoul both had nice gun collections. I’d bet Mao did too. So no surprise she has at least one gun, and no surprise she’s bragging about it either – she’s always up in the faces of the rednecks and the straights – although 90% of the time it goes right over their heads. Or under.

    Those are commie-salads, not word-salads…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here