Vice President Kamala Harris recently drew the ire of Second Amendment advocates after claiming she owned a “Glock” handgun, which contrasts with her previous support for bans and restrictions on these types of guns.
“I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time,” Harris said during a recent interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” citing her “background in law enforcement” as the reason she has it.
The remark came after Harris and her campaign repeatedly highlighted that she and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, are gun owners, noting during an interview with Oprah Winfrey that anyone breaking into her home is “getting shot.”
However, throughout Harris’ long career, including stints as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, she repeatedly voiced support for banning or restricting citizens from legally possessing handguns. She also argued at the federal level that banning handguns does not violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment rights.
Fox News Digital questioned the Harris campaign about what model Glock handgun the vice president owns but did not receive a response.
“Throughout her political career, Harris has been rabidly anti-gun and supported measures that prohibit the possession of handguns by law-abiding, peaceable Americans,” Randy Kozuch, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), told Fox News Digital.
“That position is not only radical in modern American politics but goes further than most gun control activists are willing to admit.”
As San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris sponsored a 2005 ballot measure known as Proposition H that sought to ban the manufacture, sale or possession of pistols by San Franciscans unless they are a member of law enforcement, in the military or work in private security. While the ballot measure was passed by voters, it was ultimately struck down by the courts in 2008 before it could ever take effect.
Despite the challenges to Proposition H, Harris intensified her campaign to restrict handguns in 2008. Harris, alongside a handful of other district attorneys, penned an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing a ban on handguns does not violate the Constitution. The court was considering the matter of handgun restrictions in D.C. v. Heller, a case that is widely considered the nation’s most prominent Second Amendment case. The court ultimately ruled the Constitution does protect a person’s right to own a handgun for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
Additionally, in 2013, as California’s attorney general, Harris took steps that one Second Amendment expert in California said severely restricted the types of handguns residents could own.
In California, under the Unsafe Handgun Act passed in 2001, only certain approved pistols can be bought, sold or owned in the state. Harris, for her part, made that list even more restrictive when she acted to certify “microstamping” for all handguns in the state.
“The manufacturer has to put this little raised number on the inside of the chamber and on the firing pin so that … if police find the cartridge case at a crime scene, they can try and trace it back to a gun,” said Chuck Michel, a California attorney who litigated against Proposition H on behalf of the NRA.
He pointed out that the move “resulted in the number of models of handguns that are available for people to buy in California going from tens of thousands to just hundreds.”
Michel also noted that Harris, as California attorney general, sought to block efforts to eliminate the state’s requirement that gun owners show “good cause” to obtain a concealed carry permit.
“Kamala Harris never met a gun control law that she didn’t like,” Michel said. “She supported everything that the extreme progressive San Francisco City Council ever proposed. She tried to limit concealed carry by intervening in a court case to block a Ninth Circuit win. She obviously supported Prop H. And she supported the D.C. handgun ban with an amicus brief in the Heller case that she took the lead on. And she certified microstamping.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
However, while critics like Michel say Harris is a hypocrite for being a gun owner, Clark Neily, one of the co-counsels who successfully argued the Heller case, said he didn’t think there was anything “hypocritical or duplicitous” about Harris owning a handgun while also taking the stance that the Constitution does not protect one’s right to own one.
“For example, many thoughtful people think women should be able to have an abortion — and have had or would have an abortion themselves — but nevertheless don’t believe there’s a constitutional right to an abortion.”
