Kamala Harris Says She Owns a GLOCK…That Raises Some Questions

Kamala says she has a Glock. Is asked if she has ever shot it, laughs nervously and says of course she has, at a shooting range. Do you believe her? pic.twitter.com/0IVhMF5o5X

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) October 8, 2024

Kamala Harris says she’s owned her GLOCK for years. At first we wondered if it’s a model that’s on California’s handgun roster. Then we remembered that no GLOCKs were approved for the California roster because they don’t have the mandated magazine disconnect or a loaded chamber indicator. That means they were deemed dangerous under California’s Unsafe Hangun Act. That’s right, Kamala Harris owns a gun that’s considered unsafe in her home state.

Gen3 and earlier GLOCKs were grandfathered in as they were sold before the law was passed, so they’re not available to mere citizens, but not the more recent models. Besides, whatever GLOCK she may own, Harris never had to worry about complying with annoying details like California’s ever-widening web of gun control laws. She was part of a special class.

As an elected “law enforcement officer” — Harris was San Francisco’s District Attorney, then California’s Attorney General — she was carved out of the restrictions that average Golden Staters have had to live under for decades. She could buy and own any damned gun she wanted while everyday Californians were limited to only those handguns the state, in its infinite wisdom, deemed “safe.”

Roster-approved or not, it’s interesting that she chose a Gaston gun when she was buying her gat. Her GLOCK — whatever model it may be, we’d bet good money she has no earthly idea — is made by the company that the city of Chicago is suing with the help of Everytown and with the alleged complicity of the White House Ministry of Gun Control…which Harris herself spearheads. They claim that GLOCKs are too easy to modify by adding illegal aftermarket switches.

Is Madame Vice President aware of that? Does she know her pistol is considered “unsafe” in the eyes of the state she calls home? How does she square her handgun ownership with her previous advocacy for banning handguns in San Francisco? Isn’t it at least a little awkward that she owns a gun, the design of which allegedly enables criminals to “make heinous acts even more deadly?”

Shouldn’t she be asked about that? Will anyone in the corporate media pose any of those questions?

We won’t hold our breath.