The California Rifle and Pistol Affiliation (CRPA), one of many largest state rifle and pistol associations in America and the oldest 2A group in California, sits in a singular place to completely perceive Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris’ file on gun rights. It’s in California, that Harris started and grew her authorized and political profession first as an assistant district lawyer, then as lawyer common of the state and on to change into a U.S. senator for the state earlier than changing into the present vice chairman. As vice chairman, she sat just about unnoticed for 3½ years apart from her stint because the Border Czar, below whose management or lack thereof noticed a border that was porous to historic proportions, or as the pinnacle of President Joe Biden’s Workplace of Gun Violence Prevention, which is the administration’s effort to enact common background checks, ban fashionable sporting rifles and magazines that maintain greater than 10 rounds and push pink flag legal guidelines. Harris now additionally claims to have had a hand in each main determination made by the present administration within the White Home over that very same time interval. Take that confession, er umm, assertion as you see match.
Given their entrance row seat to Harris’ political evolution on gun points, CRPA studies they’ve “acquired quite a few questions concerning the background and stances of Kamala Harris on Second Modification points.” In response, the group has launched this Reporter’s Information, which they hope will reply lots of the urgent questions concerning Kamal Harris’ view on firearms as evidenced by her previous actions, not just by what she is claiming on the marketing campaign path as she seeks to broaden her enchantment to extra People.
In releasing the information, CRPA famous along with reply questions the press has had about Harris on weapons, they hope it can additionally “assist with extra unanswered questions that must be requested by the press sooner or later.” Whereas an amazing instrument for the press, the information additionally serves as a priceless instrument to voters, significantly those that could personal a firearm or wish to in the future personal one, however will not be essentially ardent members of the 2A neighborhood. It’s going to additionally serve voters who’ve little interest in or little information of firearms points personally, however do care about their rights as Americans or for the newcomers to this nation, the rights they may have ought to they ever earn citizenship.
What follows is taken immediately from the CRPA’s Press Information:
Harris’ Latest Feedback on Weapons
Kamala Harris has taken an curiosity in projecting to voters that she just isn’t against gun rights, at the least insofar because it pertains to handguns. In a current interview, she debuted her stance on the Second Modification. The Vice President, who had beforehand by no means met a gun management proposal she didn’t like, mentioned that if “anyone breaks into my home, they’re getting shot. [laughter] Sorry, in all probability shouldn’t have mentioned that! [more laughter] However my workers will take care of that later.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSNSq19z2C4)
Then, in an interview with 60 Minutes, when requested what sort of gun she has, Harris answered that she owns a Glock handgun however didn’t specify what mannequin or which technology. (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aC6EK2in544)
Paired together with her fixed new chorus that she and her working mate Tim Walz are gun house owners, the Harris Marketing campaign desires to ship the message to swing state voters that whereas Kamala Harris endorses common background checks, pink flag legal guidelines, and a ban on so-called “assault weapons” (i.e., widespread semiautomatic rifles), she is in any other case very a lot pro-Second Modification. Harris is thus attempting to provide voters the impression that whereas she doesn’t need common residents to have weapons like AR-15s (among the hottest rifles within the U.S.), their proper to personal and purchase handguns is secure below a Harris administration. With out revealing the kind of Glock Harris possesses, it’s unclear if she possesses an illegal firearm that isn’t allowed in California below insurance policies that she fought to implement.
Historic Points With Harris’ Present Feedback
The difficulty is, there may be little cause to consider Harris’ current feedback are something greater than election pandering. Harris’ historical past makes her sudden claims of assist for widespread handgun possession suspect, as she has constantly opposed and obstructed that proper for many years.
As district lawyer in San Francisco, she backed Proposition H, which might have banned all handguns within the metropolis had a lawsuit not stopped it. (https://thereload.com/kamala-harris-backed-san-francisco-handgun-confiscation-measure/)
Later, she led an effort by many district attorneys to induce the Supreme Court docket to rule that there was no particular person proper to maintain and bear arms, after which held a press convention to criticize the Heller ruling when the Supreme Court docket in the end disagreed together with her by accepting the person rights interpretation of the Second Modification. (https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_district_attorneys.pdf)
In 2013, appearing as California Legal professional Normal, Kamala Harris applied the microstamping requirement of California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” which successfully banned the sale of contemporary handguns in California for a decade till CRPA’s lawsuit, Boland v. Bonta, bought an Orange County federal court docket to enjoin enforcement of that requirement in 2023. (https://oag.ca.gov/websites/all/information/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf)
Then there may be Harris’ hypocritical purported Glock possession, a gun California defines as “unsafe”, whatever the mannequin and technology of Glock pistol it’s.
Harris’s Help of Proposition H (Proposed San Francisco Handgun Ban)
As has now been coated by varied shops , Kamala Harris supported a 2005 poll measure that banned San Francisco residents from possessing pistols. The San Jose Mercury Information reported on the time: “Though Mayor Gavin Newsom has not taken a place, a number of of the town’s most liberal leaders are supporting the far-reaching ban — together with District Legal professional Kamala Harris and 4 supervisors who’re listed as sponsors.” The measure additionally banned “all Metropolis residents, with out exception, from promoting, distributing, transferring and manufacturing firearms and ammunition.”
The CRPA, NRA, and Second Modification Basis sued to cease the ordinance from taking impact and have been represented by Michel & Associates, P.C. In January 2008, a California state appeals court docket struck down Proposition H. It dominated San Francisco had overstepped its authority in instituting the ban.[1]
Along with dropping on the deserves of the authorized claims, the court docket additionally ordered San Francisco to pay tons of of 1000’s of {dollars} in authorized charges to the plaintiffs as prevailing events within the go well with. San Francisco appealed the choice, however the California Supreme Court docket declined to take up that enchantment.
Harris Opposes the Particular person Proper Confirmed within the Supreme Court docket’s Heller Choice
The Supreme Court docket’s landmark case on the Second Modification is District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the excessive court docket dominated that the Second Modification protects a person’s proper to maintain and bear arms and doesn’t require participation in a collective entity like a militia. It additionally held that statutes banning handgun possession within the house violate this core Second Modification-protected proper. (https://www.oyez.org/circumstances/2007/07-290)
Within the leadup to the case, Kamala Harris helped arrange a coalition of district attorneys to submit an amicus curiae transient that expressly urged the Supreme Court docket to rule in favor of Washington DC’s ban on handguns, and to rule in opposition to the person rights interpretation of the Second Modification. (https://x.com/CRPAPresident/standing/1839452104538419499)
Excerpts from that transient:
Following the Heller ruling in opposition to Harris’ place, she held a press occasion with then-Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom to criticize the landmark determination https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G1VGJBWcU
Harris Implements the Microstamping Expertise Requirement for Semiautomatic Pistols in California as Legal professional Normal
In 1999, the California legislature enacted the Unsafe Handgun Act, which barred the sale of recent handguns in California until they handed sure security assessments and included sure “options.” If the weapons handed, they have been included on the State’s handgun roster and in a position to be offered new in gun shops to the overall firearms-eligible public. This prohibition didn’t apply to legislation enforcement, nor to an ever-expanding listing of different quasi-law enforcement sort authorities company personnel such because the Division of Motor Autos, harbor or port districts, and the investigation division of the Division of Client Affairs.[2] Such exempt law-enforcement personnel might proceed to buy handguns that California legislation deemed “unsafe” at retail firearms sellers.
This instantly constrained the California handgun market, nonetheless, just a few new weapons continued to make it onto California’s handgun roster.
Enter “Microstamping”
Regardless of these strict necessities, one characteristic requirement handed by the legislature in 2007 had gone unenforced for years. The legislation included a requirement for microstamping, an experimental know-how below which the firing pin of a pistol would come with a microscopic array of characters that establish the make, mannequin and serial variety of the pistol. The thought was that when the firing pin struck the cartridge to fireplace a bullet, it will depart an indentation on the spent casing that legislation enforcement might then use to establish the handgun used and its registered proprietor.
The thought was foolish in a number of methods. Criminals often use stolen weapons, not their very own, so figuring out the registered proprietor was meaningless. At most, the identification mark would establish the preliminary lawful proprietor of the gun, whom it was stolen from. Even when it was a gun the felony had bought legally, they might file down the firing pin barely to destroy the array of characters. Or, they might change the firing pin with one other. Or, they might be sure to gather their shell casings. Lastly, they might simply use a revolver for his or her crimes.
Moreover, the unique microstamping requirement required micro stamped indentation on two areas of the brass casing, which made the know-how primarily inconceivable to adapt. Years later, California later amended the requirement to just one location.
However apart from the comical ineffectiveness of the thought, the know-how has additionally merely by no means existed exterior of a laboratory setting. Even the gun-hostile California legislature acknowledged this, so that they wrote into the legislation that it will solely take impact as soon as the Legal professional Normal “certifies that the know-how used to create the imprint is obtainable to a couple of producer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.” Thus, microstamping didn’t take rapid impact, and handguns that had at the least an MDM and CLI just like the Protect could possibly be offered new in California, together with pre-2007 handgun fashions that have been grandfathered into the Roster.
Legal professional Normal Kamala Harris Places Microstamping into Impact, Successfully Banning the Sale of New Semiautomatic Handguns in California
On Could 17, 2013, then-Legal professional Normal of California Kamala Harris determined to problem a certification that the microstamping know-how is obtainable to a couple of producer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. From then on, a semiautomatic handgun might solely be offered in California if it had sure options and microstamping. The apparent problem was that the know-how didn’t exist exterior of a laboratory setting, and it nonetheless doesn’t at the moment. Making just a few micro stamped firing pins for an experiment is one factor, however mass manufacturing is one other.
No new semiautomatic handguns entered the roster from 2013 on, so the legislation successfully mandated obsolescence within the semiautomatic pistol market whereas residents all through the nation might select from the latest fashions.
Kamala Harris’s motion meant the overwhelming majority of Californians who weren’t exempted from the legislation couldn’t buy in style handguns first launched after 2013, resembling all Gen 4 & 5 Glocks, the Sig Sauer P365, Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 fashions and plenty of extra fashions from dozens of arms makers.
The Hypocrisy of Kamala Harris’s Glock Handgun
In an interview with CBS’ in style program 60 Minutes, Kamala Harris claimed to personal a Glock. She doesn’t state what mannequin, or which technology. In California, solely Technology 3 Glocks might be offered to common residents as a result of they have been grandfathered onto the roster earlier than the accent necessities took impact (and earlier than microstamping). However they’re nonetheless legally thought of “unsafe” handguns, though they’ll nonetheless be offered as a result of grandfathering. Why doesn’t Harris personal a gun that California considers “secure” for normal residents to buy, contemplating her sturdy assist and instrumental function she performed within the Unsafe Handgun Act?
The truth is, Harris not solely supported the Roster by triggering the enforceability of the microstamping requirement, she additionally defended the legislation as Legal professional Normal in opposition to varied lawsuits, together with in Pena v. Lindley. There, she argued that amongst different issues, the roster was constitutional though it required chamber load indicators, journal disconnect mechanisms and microstamping, and had prevented new handguns from being offered within the state.[3]
Thus, if Harris owns a Technology 3 Glock, she is a hypocrite for proudly owning a handgun that she argued is “unsafe” for residents.
However the hypocrisy will get even worse if she owns a extra fashionable technology of Glock pistol. Glock has continued to make the Technology 3 fashions nearly solely for the California market, however its Technology 4 and 5 fashions, in style in the remainder of the nation, can’t be offered new to common residents in California, solely legally exempt people (resembling legislation enforcement).
If Kamala Harris has a Technology 4 or 5 Glock handgun, then she has a handgun that can’t be offered new to common residents in California because of a legislation she supported, expanded, and defended in court docket as Legal professional Normal. Whereas she enjoys the extra fashionable pistol for her personal safety, common Californians need to both pay a fortune to purchase that very same gun secondhand within the resale market, or, they have to accept a handgun Kamala Harris and the legislation she backed had deemed “secure” sufficient for them.
It’s unclear if Kamala really owns a firearm or not, as a result of in 2019 imprecise studies surfaced that she tried to eliminate her firearm earlier than working for president. This has not been confirmed however must be one thing appeared into for future reporting.
Inquiries to ask Kamala
A reporter who interviews Kamala ought to ask her:
You’ve got mentioned on the marketing campaign path that your values haven’t modified. Does that apply to your place on gun rights? Do you remorse your assist of Proposition H in San Francisco? In that case, why? Be particular. Do you stand by your amicus transient to the Supreme Court docket in Heller, wherein you urged the Court docket to rule that there was no particular person proper to maintain and bear arms (together with handguns)? In case your thoughts has modified and also you now assist that ruling, what brought on you to alter? Do you stand by your actions as Legal professional Normal of California, which led to an efficient decade-long ban on the sale of contemporary handguns to common residents in California till the legislation was declared unconstitutional final yr? In that case, how do you sq. that together with your current statements that make it sound like you don’t oppose the suitable to personal handguns? Why do you personal a Glock handgun, of which the present fashions the Unsafe Handgun Act in California declares an “unsafe” handgun? What technology of Glock is it? What mannequin? What’s its journal capability? How did you purchase it? From whom – a retail seller or a non-public social gathering switch? Is that this the identical firearm you had while you have been a prosecutor or is it a purchase order after you left that place? You’ve got acknowledged you’ve smoked marijuana earlier than, appropriate? Are you conscious that federal legislation prohibits individuals who smoke marijuana from proudly owning a firearm? Did you smoke marijuana whereas proudly owning and possessing a firearm? You’ve got admitted to spoking marijuana. Was this when you have been an elected official? Did you ever let your employer know that you just have been a marijuana person as a legislation enforcement official and that you might not be in possession of a firearm?
[1] “[T]he sheer breadth of Prop H makes it susceptible to a preemption problem,” Choose Ignazio John Ruvolo wrote for a unanimous state appeals court docket in Fiscal v. San Francisco. “As already famous, Part 2 of Prop H bans the ‘sale, manufacture, switch or distribution’ of ammunition and firearms within the Metropolis, with out exception. With slender exceptions, Part 3 bans the possession of handguns by San Francisco residents, together with possession inside the sanctity of properties, companies, and personal property.”
[2] CAL. PENAL CODE § 32000(b)(6).
[3] https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pena_Appellees-Answering-Transient.pdf
