Kamala Harris Choice Creates Most Anti-Gun Presidential Ticket in History

H/T AmmoLand.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris are a deadly combination as far as the Second Amendment.


Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have lengthy histories of hating guns and the Second Amendment. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Between presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s calls for firearm confiscation and the draft Democratic Party Platform, the 2020 Democratic ticket was already shaping up to be the most anti-Second Amendment in history. With Biden’s, or his team of able-minded handlers’, choice of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for the vice-presidential slot, the Biden campaign, and the Democratic Party have cemented this ignominious distinction.

Biden’s advanced age and visible decline make this vice presidential decision even more concerning. A Harris presidency would be an existential threat to the Second Amendment and gun owners.

Harris Does Not Believe the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed on to an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller case concerned a complete prohibition on the civilian ownership of handguns within the District of Columbia.

Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued,

courts 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, 

According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller“create[d]” this right. The brief stated,

The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding-era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today. 

Anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court’s move in the next landmark Second Amendment case (McDonald v. Chicago), Harris’s brief reiterated 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.

Harris’s extreme views on the U.S. Constitution were again born out in her votes against President Donald Trump’s pro-Second Amendment nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court. On September 4, 2018, Harris delivered a speech to the Senate where she cited Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s fidelity to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as a reason for her opposition to his confirmation.

With this track record, gun owners could expect a president Harris to nominate U.S. Supreme Court justices and lower court judges that share her discredited view of the Second Amendment.

Harris Intends to Ban and Confiscate Commonly-Owned Firearms

Harris has repeatedly supported a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Harris is a co-sponsor of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (S.66). During the previous Congress, Biden’s VP pick supported Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 (S.2095) Sold as a reinstatement of the failed 1994 Clinton semi-auto ban, S.66 is, in fact, a far more sweeping attack on Second Amendment rights.

The bill would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. The 1994 ban prohibited firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine that were equipped with two items from a list of enumerated features –such as a collapsible stock, pistol grip, or threaded barrel. S.66 would prohibit firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine that have only one of the offending features. Moreover, the list of features has been expanded to target a wider array of firearms.

The bill would also ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This measure would prohibit the standard magazines of the most popular handguns in the country.

However, Harris has made clear that Feinstein’s broad attack on the Second Amendment does not go far enough for her liking. S.66 would grandfather firearms and magazines currently possessed by American gun owners. Harris wants gun confiscation.

At a campaign event in Londonderry, N.H. in early September, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

On the September 16 edition of the “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, ”Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question and answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do 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?”

The candidate responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes America’s Second Amendment is for sale, the senator added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buyback and give people their value, the financial value.”

Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3 MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.

Harris Would Abuse Executive Power to Illegally Attack Gun Rights

In their eagerness to burden gun owners, the Barack Obama administration stretched existing federal law to its limits. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively,” adding, “The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.”Put another way, the Obama administration exhausted the legislative branch’s authority to unilaterally control guns.

Harris has proposed to use executive power to enact gun control in a manner that even the Obama administration understood was illegal.

According to Harris’s 2020 campaign website,

If Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president – including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill – she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe 

In other words, if Congress refuses to legislate in the manner she demands, Harris would break the law to legislate by decree.

Among her proposed executive actions would be a cap on the number of firearms an individual could privately transact in a year.

Present statute, 18 U.S.C. §922 requires that an individual “engaged in the business” of selling firearms register as a Federal Firearms Licensee and perform a background check prior to transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual. “Engaged in the business” is further defined in 18 U.S.C. §921 to mean, 

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

This language was explicitly adopted to avoid a numerical cap on the number of firearms an individual could privately transfer, instead of focusing on whether the person was engaged in the activity “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.”Harris’s proposed executive action would violate the clear language of 18 U.S.C. §921.

The Obama administration explored this avenue of gun control and determined it was outside their authority. Rejecting a hard cap as untenable, the Obama administration opted to release a guidance document elaborating upon the circumstances under which a person must obtain a Federal Firearms License.

Harris has also made clear that she intends to abuse ATF’s firearm manufacturer and dealer licensing function to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and attack the gun industry. Other proposed executive actions include an illegal expansion of the prohibited persons categories and further restrictions on the importation of firearms.

With her rejection of the Second Amendment, advocacy for gun confiscation, and intent to ignore existing firearms law, Harris is a singular and despotic danger to gun owners. Devoid of any respect for the U.S. Constitution, the legislative process, and the rule of law, Harris has proven herself unfit for office.



Kamala Harris Impeachment Hearings Won’t Take Long Since Trump Has ‘Confessed’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

This statement proves Kamala Harris is stupider than she looks.

Sunday show round-up.

This week on the Sunday news shows: Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif) explained the impeachment process will not take long, Hillary Clinton said Trump knows he’s an illegitimate president, and Robert De Niro said ‘”f— ’em” about Fox News critics during a CNN interview.

Kamala Harris: Impeachment Hearings Won’t Take Long Since Trump Has ‘Confessed’

Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris told MSNBC the impeachment process won’t take long because President Donald Trump has already confessed.

“Here’s the thing, Joy,” Harris said during a phone interview with AM Joy‘s Joy Reid. “Basically, the president has confessed and there is evidence of consciousness of guilt which is, they tried to bury the transcript. We’ve got a transcript. I mean frankly, people have said to me you know ‘do you think these hearings are going to take very long?’ Not really because there’s a whole lot of direct evidence including his virtual confession.”

Harris explained she is confident the House Democrats’ impeachment process will be successful.

“So we just need to get on with it and not be distracted by the okie-doke and those people who would have us looking at the shiny thing over there,” Harris said.

Harris has repeatedly called for the impeachment of President Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Harris wrote in an op-ed for Elle magazine on Friday the need for a formal impeachment process against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“We need to get to the truth about Kavanaugh,” Harris wrote. “And I believe the best path to truth and accountability is through a formal impeachment process.”

Clinton: Trump’s ‘Guilty Conscience’ Over 2016 Is Why He’s ‘Obsessed With Me’

Two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said President Donald Trump “knows he’s an illegitimate president” in an interview in which she called for him to be impeached and removed from office.

CBS Sunday Morning‘s Jane Pauley asked why no Democratic candidates want to talk about Clinton, the party’s previous nominee, while Trump likes to bring her up on Twitter and in speeches. Clinton said it’s all a product of Trump’s guilty conscience about 2016.

“I know that he knows that this wasn’t on the level. I don’t know we’ll ever know everything that happened, but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day, and history will probably sort it all out,” she said. “So of course he’s obsessed with me. And I believe that it’s a guilty conscience, in so much as he has a conscience.”

Clinton took “responsibility” for her defeat but argued it was the product of unpredictable forces.

“I believe he knows he’s an illegitimate president. He knows. He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did. And I take responsibility for those parts of it that I should, but … it’s like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado,” she said.

Clinton recommended an impeachment inquiry against Trump, and when Pauley asked what might happen if Trump survives the inquiry and wins another term, Clinton said it was not going to happen.

De Niro to Critics at Fox News: ‘F— ‘Em’



Actor Robert De Niro cursed out Fox News critics of his strident language against Donald Trump on Sunday, saying “f—” them during a CNN interview.

Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter, a vehement critic of Fox, invoked the network as being among those critical of De Niro’s “f— Trump” rant at the 2018 Tony Awards.

“F— ’em,” De Niro said. “F— ’em. Sorry.”

Stelter admonished him for cursing on a Sunday morning, although he noted it wouldn’t be an FCC violation since CNN is a cable network.

“Why do you choose to go that way?” Stelter asked.

“We are at a moment in this country where this guy is like a gangster,” De Niro said. “We’re in a terrible situation, and this guy just keeps going on and on and on without being stopped.”

“Hmm,” Stelter replied, before going to commercial.

De Niro repeatedly called Trump “crazy” during the interview and said Trump was “worse than I ever could have imagined.”





Kamala Harris: Issue of Race Now a ‘National Security Issue’

H/T Western Journal.

Kamala Harris knows she is not gaining any traction in the DemocRat race so she keeps tossing out race to keep getting noticed and to stay afloat.

Just when we may have thought Kamala Harris‘ hammer-and-anvil approach to identity politics couldn’t get worse, she has proven us wrong.

“It is a fact Russia interfered in the election of the president of the United States,” the California senator said Friday.

But Harris, among the Democrats’ countless carousel of 2020 presidential hopefuls, was only getting started. Her speech wouldn’t reach its crescendo until she mentioned her favorite subject: skin color.

While speaking in Indianapolis at the National Urban League Conference, she asserted Russian operatives decided to divide America based on race.

The senator said they “started figuring out well, how can we get those people, the Americans, going at each other, losing confidence in the system?”

“You know the No. 1 thing that attracted heat? Race,” she said. “And so, through a misinformation campaign, they played off of and exposed America’s Achilles heel. …

“Well guess what? All of a sudden the issue of race has become not only a civil rights issue, [but also] a national security issue.”



Let there be no doubt, Harris is convinced that focusing on race and gender will carry her into the Oval Office. (Her ex-lover and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown doesn’t think she has a prayer against President Donald Trump in 2020.)

While it’s one thing to claim Russia’s interference in the 2016 election is a national security issue, it’s an entirely different tale when you say the same thing about race. Then again, as RealClearPolitics reported, then-President Barack Obama downplayed the impact of outside interference impacting the 2016 election and said Trump should “stop whining” because “no serious person” thinks U.S. elections could be rigged.

Harris is becoming known for floating unconventional theories, such as when she told a radio show that the Colin Kaepernick controversy — involving the ex-NFL quarterback who protested during the national anthem — was due to Russian bots.

During Tuesday and Wednesday’s Democratic debates in Detroit, we can be sure Harris will bring up race. That’s how she curried favor in the previous showdown, when she insinuated former Vice President Joe Biden is racist, as USA Today reported.

Naturally, Harris’ supporters and undecided registered voters are catching on to her race-card rhetoric.

The California lawmaker has positioned herself as a legitimate 2020 contender and could surge in the polls later this week.

As is the case with the congresswomen comprising “the squad” — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib — Harris will continue her confrontational and abrasive antics.

In turn, the Harris campaign and Democratic debates figure to include an altogether lower level of discourse. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.





Kamala Harris is the One Offering ‘False Choice’ on Second Amendment

H/T AmmoLand.

Well, Kamala either your 100% pro-Second Amendment or you are a gun grabber there is no middle ground.

Kamala you are a gun grabber.

Seasoned swindler Kamala Harris pulls an old gun-grabber con.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “I am a gun owner and I own a gun for probably the reason that a lot of people do, for personal safety,” California Senator and Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris told reporters in Iowa. “And in terms of gun policy, I think that for too long and still today we are being offered a false choice which suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.

“I believe it is a false choice that is born out of a lack of courage from leaders, who must recognize and agree that there are some practical solutions to what is a clear problem in our country,” Harris elaborated. “And part of the practical solution is to agree that we need smart gun safety laws, which include universal background checks, which include a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Period.”

Harris was being disingenuous, which means she was lying. She was parroting tried and tested gun-grabber talking points to bamboozle the uninformed and the predisposed, meaning useful idiot DSM “reporters” and those who turn to them for filtered information.

While personal protection is indeed a benefit of the right to keep and bear arms, it is not the exclusive justification the Founders articulated. They did not even mention that reason in the Second Amendment, which focuses entirely on a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That means an armed populace was essential from which that militia could draw troops, and that infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms sufficient to the task negated and eviscerated that security.

Harris is all about infringements. By demanding a ban on semiautomatics demonized as “assault weapons,” she would take away from the people arms which the Supreme Court acknowledged 80 years ago have a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” meaning “the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

Otherwise, the whole point of the Second Amendment would have been to send the people off to be slaughtered by better-equipped forces of tyranny, something hardly conducive to security and freedom. The Founders were also careful to enumerate articles in the Constitution defining the powers by which the branches of government could actualize the purposes articulated in the Preamble. You’ll note usurping swindlers like Harris gloss over just where in those powers they’ve been authorized to reverse the Bill of Rights and start grabbing guns.

As for “universal background checks,” don’t think for a moment Harris doesn’t recognize –  like the National Institute of Justice has – that “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration.”  Just like they have in California. What a gift to give someone who has already said she wants to force us to surrender our Second Amendment-guaranteed arms.

One thing Harris got right is recognizing lack of courage in leaders, particularly among Republicans.

They didn’t press for gains with national reciprocity and hearing protection when they held all the cards, and now that they’ve blown their advantage, can’t seem to sell out fast enough with “compromises” on “red flag laws” and the like. What the GOP Quislings don’t get – but Harris and her fellow rights jackals do – is that concessions are recognized by political predators as signs of weakness and fear. Sure, they’ll take appeasement scraps offered, but that won’t satisfy them and make them go away. It will just encourage them to circle in closer, demanding more.

As for the “all we want are commonsense gun safety laws and no one wants to take your guns” lie, no, that’s not all they want. And of course they do. It’s what they’ve always wanted. They’ll secure each concession and use it to launch their next incursion. Does Nancy Pelosi have to spell out what she means by “slippery slope” for us?

Harris is pulling one of the oldest cons in the book, the “I’m a gun owner but” dodge, and in this case, her “but” is huge. Here’s another trick she’s employing: When she offers a couple of “gun laws” she believes she can pass off as “practical solutions,” note she prefaces them with the phrase “which include.”  That means there are plenty more she hasn’t mentioned. Then she ends her pitch with “Period,” as if that’s the end game.

It’s not. What she won’t do is define what new edicts would finally be enough for her to say “No more.” That’s because if she thought she could, she’d be going after a total monopoly of violence. There are some things it’s not prudent to admit just yet, especially since she’s now playing to a bigger crowd than California, and has to at least pretend to be “one of us.”

So the “Kamala’s a gun owner” meme is now getting big press to bolster that impression, and that all she really wants is what we all should be demanding. You don’t think this would be headlined as a positive on CNN  unless we were being played, do you?

Just remember, if owning and using them were all that it took to be considered “pro-gun,” regular readers here would have no better pal than Lon Horiuchi.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.