\n<\/p>\n
Kamala Harris has made it an easy choice for gun owners on November 5. Harris has a decades-long track record of attacking the Second Amendment and supporting gun bans and gun confiscation.<\/p>\n
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>. The case concerned a challenge to Washington, D.C.\u2019s total ban on handgun ownership. In overruling the ban, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.<\/p>\n If it was up to Harris,\u00a0Americans would not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2008, Harris was the district attorney of San Francisco. In this capacity,\u00a0Harris endorsed an amicus curiae brief of district attorneys in support of the District of Columbia and its handgun ban in the Heller case<\/a>. In\u00a0a January 2008 press release touting the brief<\/a>, the San Francisco District Attorney\u2019s Office explained that Harris was \u201cleading\u201d this effort to support the unconstitutional handgun ban.<\/p>\n Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued:<\/p>\n (C)ourts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,<\/em><\/p>\n According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller \u201ccreate[d]\u201d this right. The brief stated:<\/p>\n The lower court\u2019s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a \u201clineal descendant\u201d of a founding era weapon and that is in \u201ccommon use\u201d with a \u201cmilitary application\u201d today.<\/em><\/p>\n Anticipating the Supreme Court\u2019s move in the next landmark Second Amendment case (McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>(2010)), Harris\u2019s brief stated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not be incorporated to the states. Had this thinking been adopted, state and local governments would be empowered to curtail or even extinguish gun rights without restraint. State and local governments would have been able to bar their residents from owning any firearms whatsoever.<\/p>\n Harris\u2019s extreme views on the Second Amendment are even more dangerous considering her\u00a0willingness to pack the Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0to secure her and her political allies\u2019 preferred policy outcomes.<\/p>\n In a 2019 article titled, \u201cKamala Harris Says She\u2019s \u2018Open\u2019 to Expanding Supreme Court<\/a>,\u201d Bloomberg reported,<\/p>\n \u201cI am interested in having that conversation,\u201d [Harris] said in Nashua, New Hampshire, in response to a question about whether she favors adding as many as four seats to the court. \u201cI\u2019m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Further, in 2020, New York Times<\/em> reporter Alexander Burns stated that Harris told him that she was interested in packing the Supreme Court. Burns was recorded stating, \u201cHarris told me in an interview actually that she was absolutely open to doing that\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n There is every reason to believe that any Harris court packing scheme would involve installing a solid anti-Second Amendment majority to the Supreme Court that would work to eliminate recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\n Harris has repeatedly expressed support for a mandatory gun \u201cbuyback\u201d program where Americans would be forced to turn over their firearms to the government for a set price \u2013 in other words: gun confiscation.<\/p>\n Here is Harris supporting gun confiscation, in her own words:<\/p>\n (Sahil Kapur,\u00a0Kamala Harris Supports Mandatory Buyback of Assault Weapons<\/a>, Bloomberg, September 6, 2019)<\/p>\n The candidate responded, \u201cI do believe that we need to do buybacks.\u201d Making clear that she believes Americans\u2019 Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added \u201cA buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.\u201d<\/p>\n (The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, NBC, September 16, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\n Melvin: As you know, the \u201894 assault weapons ban, it didn\u2019t apply to weapons that were purchased before 1994. What would you do about the millions, specifically assault weapons, that are already in circulation? What do you do about those?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Harris: Well, there are approximately 5 million, to your point Craig. We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It\u2019s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we\u2019re going to have to have smart public policy that\u2019s about taking those off the streets.<\/em><\/p>\n (2020 Gun Safety Forum<\/a>, MSNBC, October 2, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\n (IPTV Presents Conversations with Presidential Candidates, Iowa PBS, October 31, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\n In 2005, as San Francisco district attorney, the now-vice president\u00a0was listed as a sponsor of Proposition H<\/a>, which was a ballot measure that sought to ban the possession of ALL handguns in the city. While the measure was approved by far-left San Francisco voters, it was struck down by the courts after NRA challenged it.<\/p>\n To be clear, this was not a ban on the future sale or possession of handguns, it was a ban on ALL handguns, which means, had it stood, firearms would either have to be removed from the city or turned over to authorities (i.e., confiscated).<\/p>\n Moreover, in January 2006, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom\u00a0sent a letter<\/a>\u00a0to the city Board of Supervisors requesting the maximum jailtime available under state law for those who violated the city handgun ban. Specifically, the letter read,<\/p>\n In accordance with Proposition H and in consultation with the Chief of Police,\u00a0District Attorney, Sheriff and the City Attorney, we are calling for the maximum penalty under state law for city residents who violate this voter approved ordinance. (emphasis added)<\/em><\/p>\n Harris Advocated for Government Agents to Invade Gun Owners\u2019 Homes to Inspect Legal Guns<\/p>\n During\u00a0a May 16, 2007 press conference<\/a>\u00a0to promote San Francisco gun control legislation pushed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and DA Harris,\u00a0the candidate advocated<\/a>\u00a0for government officials to have the power to intrude into law-abiding gun owners\u2019 locked homes to inspect their firearm storage arrangements.<\/p>\n Harris stated:<\/p>\n We\u2019re 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\u2019t mean that we\u2019re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you\u2019re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.<\/em><\/p>\n It is difficult to overstate the impact of Harris\u2019s proposal, were it to be implemented nationwide. Roughly half of American homes would be subject to government intrusion.<\/p>\n On November 21, 2023 NBC News published an article titled, \u201cPoll: Gun ownership reaches record high with American electorate<\/a>.\u201d The article explained, \u201cMore than half of American voters \u2014 52% \u2014 say they or someone in their household owns a gun, per the latest NBC News national poll.\u201d<\/p>\n On November 5, gun owners and other freedom-loving Americans have the power to reject Kamala Harris\u2019s radical and dangerous anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment policies.<\/p>\nHarris Supports Gun Confiscation<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Harris Supported a TOTAL Handgun Ban<\/h2>\n
The Choice is Clear<\/h2>\n
![<\/a>Doug Howlett Photo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\nKamala Harris has made it an easy choice for gun owners on November 5. Harris has a decades-long track record of attacking the Second Amendment and supporting gun bans and gun confiscation.<\/p>\nHarris is an Anti-Second Amendment Extremist<\/h2>\nIn 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>. The case concerned a challenge to Washington, D.C.\u2019s total ban on handgun ownership. In overruling the ban, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.<\/p>\nIf it was up to Harris,\u00a0Americans would not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms<\/a>.<\/p>\nIn 2008, Harris was the district attorney of San Francisco. In this capacity,\u00a0Harris endorsed an amicus curiae brief of district attorneys in support of the District of Columbia and its handgun ban in the Heller case<\/a>. In\u00a0a January 2008 press release touting the brief<\/a>, the San Francisco District Attorney\u2019s Office explained that Harris was \u201cleading\u201d this effort to support the unconstitutional handgun ban.<\/p>\nAdvocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued:<\/p>\n(C)ourts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,<\/em><\/p>\nAccording to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller \u201ccreate[d]\u201d this right. The brief stated:<\/p>\nThe lower court\u2019s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a \u201clineal descendant\u201d of a founding era weapon and that is in \u201ccommon use\u201d with a \u201cmilitary application\u201d today.<\/em><\/p>\nAnticipating the Supreme Court\u2019s move in the next landmark Second Amendment case (McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>(2010)), Harris\u2019s brief stated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not be incorporated to the states. Had this thinking been adopted, state and local governments would be empowered to curtail or even extinguish gun rights without restraint. State and local governments would have been able to bar their residents from owning any firearms whatsoever.<\/p>\nHarris\u2019s extreme views on the Second Amendment are even more dangerous considering her\u00a0willingness to pack the Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0to secure her and her political allies\u2019 preferred policy outcomes.<\/p>\nIn a 2019 article titled, \u201cKamala Harris Says She\u2019s \u2018Open\u2019 to Expanding Supreme Court<\/a>,\u201d Bloomberg reported,<\/p>\n\u201cI am interested in having that conversation,\u201d [Harris] said in Nashua, New Hampshire, in response to a question about whether she favors adding as many as four seats to the court. \u201cI\u2019m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nFurther, in 2020, New York Times<\/em> reporter Alexander Burns stated that Harris told him that she was interested in packing the Supreme Court. Burns was recorded stating, \u201cHarris told me in an interview actually that she was absolutely open to doing that\u2026\u201d<\/p>\nThere is every reason to believe that any Harris court packing scheme would involve installing a solid anti-Second Amendment majority to the Supreme Court that would work to eliminate recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\nHarris Supports Gun Confiscation<\/h2>\nHarris has repeatedly expressed support for a mandatory gun \u201cbuyback\u201d program where Americans would be forced to turn over their firearms to the government for a set price \u2013 in other words: gun confiscation.<\/p>\nHere is Harris supporting gun confiscation, in her own words:<\/p>\n\nAt a September 2019 campaign event, Harris told reporters that confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was \u201ca good idea.\u201d Elaborating on her support for a compulsory \u201cbuyback\u201d program, Harris added, \u201cWe have to work out the details \u2014 there are a lot of details \u2014 but I do\u2026We have to take those guns off the streets.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n(Sahil Kapur,\u00a0Kamala Harris Supports Mandatory Buyback of Assault Weapons<\/a>, Bloomberg, September 6, 2019)<\/p>\n\nOn the September 16, 2019 episode of \u201cThe Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,\u201d Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris \u201cDo you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe candidate responded, \u201cI do believe that we need to do buybacks.\u201d Making clear that she believes Americans\u2019 Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added \u201cA buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.\u201d<\/p>\n(The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, NBC, September 16, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\n\nOn October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC \u201cgun safety forum.\u201d During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nMelvin: As you know, the \u201894 assault weapons ban, it didn\u2019t apply to weapons that were purchased before 1994. What would you do about the millions, specifically assault weapons, that are already in circulation? What do you do about those?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nHarris: Well, there are approximately 5 million, to your point Craig. We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It\u2019s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we\u2019re going to have to have smart public policy that\u2019s about taking those off the streets.<\/em><\/p>\n(2020 Gun Safety Forum<\/a>, MSNBC, October 2, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\n\nOn October 31, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation at a public television candidates forum in Ankeny, Iowa. Responding to a question about gun control, Harris answered, \u201cI support buybacks.\u201d The forum moderator then asked Harris, \u201cHow mandatory is your gun buyback program?\u201d Harris made clear, \u201cIt\u2019s mandatory.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n(IPTV Presents Conversations with Presidential Candidates, Iowa PBS, October 31, 2019,\u00a0Watch the Video<\/a>)<\/p>\nHarris Supported a TOTAL Handgun Ban<\/h2>\nIn 2005, as San Francisco district attorney, the now-vice president\u00a0was listed as a sponsor of Proposition H<\/a>, which was a ballot measure that sought to ban the possession of ALL handguns in the city. While the measure was approved by far-left San Francisco voters, it was struck down by the courts after NRA challenged it.<\/p>\nTo be clear, this was not a ban on the future sale or possession of handguns, it was a ban on ALL handguns, which means, had it stood, firearms would either have to be removed from the city or turned over to authorities (i.e., confiscated).<\/p>\nMoreover, in January 2006, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom\u00a0sent a letter<\/a>\u00a0to the city Board of Supervisors requesting the maximum jailtime available under state law for those who violated the city handgun ban. Specifically, the letter read,<\/p>\nIn accordance with Proposition H and in consultation with the Chief of Police,\u00a0District Attorney, Sheriff and the City Attorney, we are calling for the maximum penalty under state law for city residents who violate this voter approved ordinance. (emphasis added)<\/em><\/p>\nHarris Advocated for Government Agents to Invade Gun Owners\u2019 Homes to Inspect Legal Guns<\/p>\nDuring\u00a0a May 16, 2007 press conference<\/a>\u00a0to promote San Francisco gun control legislation pushed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and DA Harris,\u00a0the candidate advocated<\/a>\u00a0for government officials to have the power to intrude into law-abiding gun owners\u2019 locked homes to inspect their firearm storage arrangements.<\/p>\nHarris stated:<\/p>\nWe\u2019re 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\u2019t mean that we\u2019re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you\u2019re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.<\/em><\/p>\nIt is difficult to overstate the impact of Harris\u2019s proposal, were it to be implemented nationwide. Roughly half of American homes would be subject to government intrusion.<\/p>\nOn November 21, 2023 NBC News published an article titled, \u201cPoll: Gun ownership reaches record high with American electorate<\/a>.\u201d The article explained, \u201cMore than half of American voters \u2014 52% \u2014 say they or someone in their household owns a gun, per the latest NBC News national poll.\u201d<\/p>\nThe Choice is Clear<\/h2>\nOn November 5, gun owners and other freedom-loving Americans have the power to reject Kamala Harris\u2019s radical and dangerous anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment policies.<\/p>\n\u2014Courtesy NRA-ILA<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Doug Howlett Photo Kamala Harris has made it an easy choice for gun owners on November 5. Harris has a decades-long track record of attacking the Second Amendment and supporting gun bans and gun confiscation. Harris is an Anti-Second Amendment Extremist In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller. The case concerned […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4126,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4125","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4125\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Voting-Signs_Doug-Howlett.jpeg\"){kind=link}