On Oct. 9, the New York Times reported that Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, owns a semiautomatic Glock pistol.

The revelation has sparked interest, particularly among American gun owners, as Harris' ownership of the firearm seems to provide her with a connection to a critical voter demographic, though Harris’s past support for strict gun laws in California complicates this potential appeal and has led to charges of hypocrisy, as Breitbart reports.

Harris first publicly mentioned that she owned a gun during her 2019 presidential campaign. At the time, the specifics of the firearm were not discussed.

This changed during an interview with 60 Minutes in which the VP stated that the gun she owns is a Glock. Such weapons are known for their popularity among law enforcement and civilian gun owners alike, adding significance to her choice of firearm.

Glock Ownership vs Harris’s Gun Control Advocacy

Despite this connection to gun owners through her Glock ownership, Harris's history in California paints a more restrictive picture. As the attorney general of California, Harris enforced the state’s stringent gun laws, including those targeting Glock sales.

Under the "Unsafe Handgun Act," the sale of most Glock models in California was prohibited. The law allowed only Generation 3 Glocks to be sold to the general public, while other generations of Glocks, including the model Harris supposedly owns, were banned from civilian purchase.

California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” was implemented to ensure that all handguns sold in the state met specific safety criteria. The state found Glocks lacking in three areas: they did not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lacked a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until recently, did not have microstamping technology.

Microstamping Laws Introduced by Harris

In fact, it was Harris herself who introduced microstamping requirements in California during her tenure as AG in 2013. Microstamping technology requires a firearm to imprint a unique identifier onto each cartridge it fires. Although this technology was intended to help law enforcement trace gun crimes, it became a barrier for many gun models, including most Glocks, from being sold in the state.

This contradiction between her Glock ownership and her past support for restrictive gun laws has drawn attention. The New York Times noted that Harris’s Glock is a semiautomatic, magazine-fed pistol, which aligns with what many American gun owners look for in a firearm. “If Ms. Harris wanted to appeal to a broad swath of American gun owners, she couldn’t have picked a better brand,” the article stated.

Harris’s Law Enforcement Status Allowed Glock Purchase

Harris’s personal ability to own a Glock, despite supporting laws that banned civilian access to most models, can be explained by her former roles in law enforcement. As both a district attorney and attorney general of California, Harris was part of the law enforcement community, allowing her to purchase firearms that would otherwise be banned for civilians under the state’s laws.

The Glock has been a staple of U.S. police forces for more than three decades, and its dominance in popular culture is well-established. The New York Times highlighted this fact, stating, “That the gun [Glock] has been a favorite of the country’s police forces for more than three decades helps account for its dominance in the popular imagination.”

California’s Ban On Most Glock Models Explained

While the Glock remains a highly popular firearm across the U.S., California's gun laws created a stark divide between what law enforcement officers and civilians could purchase. The "Unsafe Handgun Act" prohibited the sale of Glock models that did not meet the state's safety criteria, effectively banning most Glock generations from civilian hands. California gun owners could only buy Generation 3 Glocks, leaving the newer generations, which were available in most other states, off-limits.

Attorney Kostas Moros, a critic of California’s gun laws, explained the reason behind the ban, saying, “Unsafe handguns because they lack a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course, lacked microstamping.” These safety features became the focal point of the state's restrictions, particularly the microstamping requirement, which Harris championed.

Harris’s Gun Ownership Raises Questions

For gun owners across America, Harris’s ownership of a Glock, a firearm she helped restrict in her home state, presents an interesting contradiction. While her ownership may allow her to connect with gun-owning voters, her past actions in California may create a disconnect with those who prioritize gun rights and access.

Critics point to the fact that, as a member of law enforcement, she had privileges that regular civilians did not. This distinction between the guns available to law enforcement and the general public in California remains a point of contention for many Second Amendment advocates.

Conclusion

Kamala Harris’s Glock ownership highlights a complex dynamic in her political identity.

While her association with a popular firearm could appeal to gun owners, her past support for California’s restrictive gun laws presents a significant contradiction.

As Harris continues her presidential campaign, it remains to be seen how this dichotomy will play out with voters, especially those concerned with gun rights and regulations.

Harris’s stance on firearms will likely continue to be a point of discussion as the November election approaches.