Kamala Finally Reveals What Kind of Gun She Has—and Now She's Got a Big Problem

"I have a Glock," Kamala Harris told CBS's "60 Minutes" program on Sunday. And the sound you heard in reply was the gun world suddenly bursting forth with a huge guffaw that sounded suspiciously like the long version of BS.

The "60 Minutes" interview was part of the Democrat presidential candidate's effort to convey a more serious tone, between the sex podcast and "The View" appearances, that is. As Matt reports, the interview was a disaster for a variety of reasons. 

The gun issue is on another level altogether.

Getting a New York reporter to ask a decent follow-up about a personal firearm is what you'd expect when you ask a New York City apartment dweller to tell you what kind of truck he drives. But Bill Whitaker tried, bless his heart.  

“Have you ever fired it?” Whitaker asked. 

“Yes. Of course. Ha-ha-ha,” said Harris, claiming she'd gone to a range. 

Even though any gun guy would have asked what kind of a Glock do you own, at least Whitaker asked whether or not she'd ever fired it, so give the city slicker some credit. 

But the problem is, as attorney general of California, Kamala Harris declared the very gun that the 2024 version of Kamala Harris says she owns "unsafe." 

Cue the record scratch.

Gun law attorney Kostas Moros told PJ Media, "Kamala's whole history until now has been opposition to the right to own handguns. It's a reversal that is obviously phony."

Related: So Kamala Has a Gun, Does She?

An attorney for the preeminent California gun rights group, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Moros asked on X, "She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an 'unsafe handgun'"?

Oof.

Moros explained that as California attorney general in 2013, Harris classified all Glocks as "'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator [CLI], lack a magazine disconnect mechanism [MDM], and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping." 

Harris issued rules requiring the novel and bespoke "microstamping" technology on mass-produced guns to imprint a "microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol," Moros explains. 

As a "law enforcement" officer, Kamala should know that criminals don't go through legal means to get guns. If they legally owned a gun and committed a crime, they would likely pick up their brass. Or, as Moros explains, "they could replace the firing pin with another. Or, alternatively, they could just use a revolver for their crimes."

California's and Kamala's efforts to make it as hard as possible to purchase and/or conceal guns make her sudden gun switcheroo much harder to stomach. Nobody believes her new stance, as I explained in my piece, "Kamala's Ghost Gun." And it's especially galling to hear her retconning her gun history to the people who have been in the trenches fighting gun grabbers like her.

Moros says that Harris's "actions as attorney general of California are the reason why Californians could not purchase modern semiautomatic handguns first designed after 2013." And worse, he says, "Her ban would last until 2023, when a recent lawsuit brought by my colleagues representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association won a preliminary injunction against the law in question."

Harris has done more than most to separate Americans from their God-given rights to self-defense. California's onerous gun-roster restrictions were thrown out in court, largely thanks to the California Rifle & Pistol Association's hard work.